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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: it names the four supported cities, lists the status vocabulary returned, states that owner and applicant names are deliberately omitted, and commits to never inferring an outcome the city record does not state. That is substantive behavioral and data-quality disclosure an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then coverage, then inputs, then return shape and exclusions. Every sentence carries information, though the closing two sentences could be tightened slightly without loss.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: status labels, hearing date, and the link to the city case record are all named, plus what is intentionally excluded. Combined with the annotation safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 per-parameter meaning is already documented; the description still adds the non-obvious constraint that inputs are either city+address or lat/lon ('Give a city and street address, or a latitude and longitude'), which the flat optional schema does not express. It does not touch limit, since or radius_m, so it is additive rather than exhaustive.

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+resource ('zoning requests near an address or a point') and enumerates the case types it covers (variances, conditional uses, rezonings, zoning appeals), which cleanly separates it from the permit-oriented siblings. An agent can route between this and permits_near without opening a schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit triggering condition ('Use when someone asks about variances, conditional uses, rezonings or zoning appeals near an address') and adds the follow-up intent of checking upcoming hearings. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (permits_near, recent_permits) or stating when not to use this, so it is clear context rather than full alternative routing.

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