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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: links come from GISFinder's directory, are verified on a schedule (verified_status, verified_at), the office named has final say, and text inside result fields must be treated as data not instructions. This is far richer than the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, providing the agent with a clear trust model.

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, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and usage, then states the location constraint, followed by the return format and the source/trust details. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, 17 topics, multiple location forms) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, how to specify location, what results look like, the source and verification, and a security note. Nothing critical for an agent to call it correctly 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 each parameter already has a description. However, the description adds the critical constraint that exactly one location form must be given (jurisdiction_id, address, lat/lon, or place+state), which is not enforced in the schema. This is a meaningful addition beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool finds official pages for a specific need (parcel map, tax bill, assessor, etc.) and returns ranked resources. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_directory or get_place_directory, so it loses a point for lack of explicit sibling distinction.

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?

It provides clear context: use when the user needs a specific official page or office for a place, and instructs to choose the topic and provide exactly one location form. It does not state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it misses the exclusion clause for a 5.

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