Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds only examples, not behavioral details such as result format, matching behavior, or what happens with partial matches. It is consistent with annotations but adds little beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with a clear action and two useful examples. Every element earns its place; there is no filler or redundant elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete: the agent knows what to pass and the general purpose. The lack of an output schema and any statement about multiple matches or empty results is a minor gap, but not critical for such a straightforward search.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema gives no description for the single 'query' parameter, so the tool description must compensate. It does clarify that query is a human-readable description and supplies examples. However, it leaves matching semantics (exact vs partial) and acceptable input formats ambiguous, making it adequate but minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a clear verb ('Find') with a specific resource ('the code for a description') and concrete examples ('disabled bay', 'bus lane'), so an agent can grasp the core purpose immediately. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling explain_contravention_code, though the direction is strongly implied; thus it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the primary use case: given a description, find the corresponding contravention code. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer alternatives like explain_contravention_code or search_guides, so the agent must infer usage boundaries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.