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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: data provenance (the City's published schedule), geographic scope, and the shape of what comes back (dates plus ward and section). The only gap is that 'upcoming' is left unquantified — no horizon or result cap is stated.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a short provenance line; the capability statement and the trigger conditions are both front-loaded with no filler. The trailing 'Source:' sentence is mildly redundant with 'City of Chicago' earlier but does convey trust/provenance.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema needs little more than this, and the description does note what is returned (dates, ward, section) so the agent knows a structured result is coming. The unspecified time horizon for 'upcoming' is the one small unknown left.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the address parameter already carries a format example ('2300 N Lincoln Ave'). The description adds only the 'Chicago only' constraint, which is close to what the schema implies; it gives no extra syntax guidance such as handling intersections or missing house numbers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — looking up upcoming City of Chicago street cleaning dates for an address — and even names the secondary return fields (ward, section). It does not explicitly name a sibling such as free_street_cleaning_alerts to distinguish a one-off lookup from an ongoing alert subscription, so it stops just 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?

Gives concrete triggering intents ('when street cleaning is on their block', 'whether they need to move their car'), which maps directly to how an agent would route a user request. The scope limit 'Chicago only' also acts as a when-not condition for non-Chicago addresses, though no alternative tool is named for out-of-scope requests.

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