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

Annotations already declare the mutation and safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds a useful behavioral trait: request_id prevents duplicate effects, which helps the agent avoid unintended repeats. It does not, however, explain what 'using' a facility actually does or any side effects beyond deduplication.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core resource and the key deduplication behavior immediately.

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?

The tool has a nested 'input' object with no defined properties, and the description does not explain what should be passed in it. Given the complexity of a facility-execution tool with required nested arguments, the description is too thin to guide correct invocation; it omits what 'use' entails and any prerequisites.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of request_id ('prevents duplicate effects'), which is more than the schema's 'unique 8-80 character id' and directly informs how to use that parameter.

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 states a resource ('city facility') but the verb 'use' is vague and does not specify what action is performed. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like read_facility or propose_facility, leaving the agent to infer the operation from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_facility or propose_facility. The only contextual clue is the request_id deduplication note, which is behavioral rather than a usage condition.

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