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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the boundary polygon is large and benefits from simplify (with an example), and matching should be numeric. It doesn't cover rate limits or pagination, but this is a strong addition.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then boundary specifics, then a critical matching note. Zero wasted words and every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description covers the complex boundary and matching behavior well. However, it doesn't explain return fields, default pagination, or how limit/offset affect results, which are relevant for a list tool without an output schema.

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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for boundary, simplify (with example), and district_id (numeric matching), but completely omits limit and offset, which are undocumented in both schema and description. This leaves a notable gap for a list tool.

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: district metadata by state and type, listing the exact types (congressional, sldu, sldl). Also clearly describes the secondary boundary retrieval mode. An agent can distinguish this from all sibling tools, none of which deal with districts.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: pass district_id with boundary:true to get a polygon, and set simplify to shrink it. Also warns to match districts numerically, not by label. It doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but none are needed given the unique resource.

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