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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the endpoints, explicitly allows empty census results, and forbids fabricating neighbors—non-obvious behavioral guardrails beyond the annotations. It could have disclosed auth/proof expectations, but the annotations lower the burden.

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?

Four short clauses each carry distinct information: endpoints, action, empty handling, and an anti-hallucination rule. There is no redundant wording, and the most important instruction is front-loaded.

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 read-only operation with an output schema and fully described optional parameters, the description plus structured metadata is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The main gap is not explaining how the auth/proof parameters relate to the endpoints, but the schema covers their individual semantics and none are required.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself says nothing about nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, or controller_public_key, but the schema already provides rich per-parameter meaning. No extra credit is warranted.

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 names specific endpoints, uses explicit verbs ('GET', 'Quote'), and identifies the resource as the published census. Among siblings like cite_law, cite_rights, and city_clock, this clearly targets census data and is unambiguous.

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 instructions imply the tool is for quoting the published census and warn against inventing neighbors, but they never explicitly state when to choose this over a sibling or when not to use it. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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