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

With readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive annotations already covering safety, the description goes further and discloses the actual payload: the rule, effective date plus later phases, who is cited, the penalty, and official sources with the date each row was checked. It also warns that 'a place with no row may still have a rule EosLog has not confirmed,' which is essential honesty about data completeness. There is no output schema, so this return-content detail is doing real work.

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?

Dense but front-loaded — the core purpose leads, followed by what gets returned and the city/state behavior. Sentences carry real information rather than filler, though the second half is packed enough that the state-preemption and caveat points could be slightly more clearly separated.

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 a two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, state vs city behavior, preemption reporting, and a data-gap caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema: state-only calls return a brief listing of all places, while adding city returns the full row. That distinction changes how an agent should call the tool and is not derivable from the parameter definitions alone.

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 names a specific verb+resource: 'Lists adopted local laws that ban or restrict gas leaf blowers in one US state, or one city or town in it.' It also identifies the data source (EosLog's sourced table) and the scope boundary, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed.

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?

Clear usage context: without a city the tool lists every place in the state briefly, and passing city yields the full row. It also flags the state-preemption case (Florida, Georgia, Texas) that an agent should expect. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative exists, but there is no competing sibling to route to.

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