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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit by adding behavior they cannot: results are ranked best-first, provenance is GovDir's scheduled verification with verified_status/verified_at, and a prompt-injection warning that result field text is data, never instructions.

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-loads the use case and exclusions before the provenance and safety notes, so the important routing information comes first. It is denser and longer than most definitions, but nearly every clause (exclusions, ranking, provenance, injection warning) carries distinct 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain returns, yet it still flags the two result kinds and the jurisdiction_id handoff. Combined with exclusions and data-handling guidance, nothing an agent needs to call this 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 all three parameters (query, state, limit) are already documented with bounds and examples. The description adds only illustrative query shapes ('Hennepin County recorder', 'Sarasota zoning'), which is marginal value over the schema's own examples.

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 precise verb+resource ('find a place or an official resource by name') and distinguishes itself from adjacent behaviors by explicitly negating web search and people search. It also signals the cross-tool payload (jurisdiction_id) that ties results to other tools in the family.

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 a concrete when-to-use condition ('when you do not have a location') with two example queries, and two clear exclusions (not a web search, never searches for people). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives like find_official_resource or resolve_jurisdiction that an agent might otherwise confuse with this tool.

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