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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond them: provenance of the records, the meaning of the status values (filed, confirmed, already open), the fields returned (area, address, council vote date, source link), and the explicit limitation "Never states an opening date."

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?

Front-loaded with the highest-signal usage phrases, then scope, then the output contract and caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the quoted phrase list is slightly repetitive but serves as retrieval bait.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to explain intent, sourcing, and limitations — all of which it does, including the no-opening-date caveat. Coverage of the bare `limit` parameter is the only real omission.

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?

Query and status already carry schema descriptions (67% coverage), and the description largely restates them (status default, area/kind examples). The untyped `limit` gets no explanation in either place, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds much beyond the schema.

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 resource (new restaurants and shops in Gilbert) and names its data sources (Town of Gilbert liquor-license list, county permits). That scoping clearly separates it from siblings like gilbert_business_lookup (existing businesses) and gilbert_council_watch (votes).

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 lead-in maps concrete user phrasings ("what is opening in Gilbert", "is <name> coming to Gilbert", neighborhood names) to this tool, which gives an agent a clear trigger. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when not to use it, so it falls below a 5.

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