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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: each resource appears once under its first topic, larger-government resources are excluded, links are schedule-verified (verified_status, verified_at), and returned field text is untrusted data, not instructions. That last point is a genuine safety disclosure found nowhere in the structured fields.

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?

Long but front-loaded and dense: the core purpose and the deduplication rule come first, followed by verification provenance and the injection warning. Every sentence carries information, though the topical-grouping minutiae could be tightened.

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 return shapes, and it still covers the tricky semantics (dedup, topic ordering, cross-government boundaries, provenance). An agent has everything required to call this correctly and interpret the results safely.

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% and the pattern/description fully document the single jurisdiction_id parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the framing that a 'place' may be a state, county, town, township or city, which is marginal beyond the schema's GEOID examples — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('see everything GovDir lists for one place ... by jurisdiction_id') and enumerates what is returned: responsible body per function, offices with contacts, and official resources grouped by topic. It also names the sibling whose territory it does not cover, so an agent can distinguish it from find_official_resource.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (one place, keyed by jurisdiction_id) and when not to, naming find_official_resource for larger governments whose resources are not repeated here. It also points at resolve_jurisdiction/search_directory for obtaining the id, covering the prerequisite.

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