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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation, the agent already knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the levels of officials returned but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like address validation or error handling. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and clearly states the input and output scope. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input, and expected return categories. It doesn't detail response format or error conditions, but the low complexity and read-only annotation make this acceptable.

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?

The schema already describes the address parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'U.S.' qualifier, which is not present in the schema description, providing extra semantic constraint. This modest addition justifies a slightly higher score.

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's function with a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('elected representatives'), and specifies the input (U.S. address) and output scope (federal, state, local). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_voter_info or get_member, which focus on other aspects.

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 description implies when to use the tool — when you need elected representatives for an address — but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives. It provides clear context without listing when-not-to-use scenarios, which is acceptable for a straightforward tool.

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