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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: results carry an `account_id`, prefix matches are ranked first, and the output feeds downstream search/list tools. It omits edge cases such as zero-match behavior and result ordering ties, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the resolution behavior and the routing rule each get one sentence, with the name-vs-coordinates distinction front-loaded before the sibling comparison.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still calls out the `account_id` field that makes the tool useful as a pipeline step. For a 2-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 disclosing query matching semantics (prefix matches ranked first) and by naming the returned `account_id` as the value to hand to other tools, which is meaningful parameter/flow context the schema does not carry.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('place name' → 'governments OpenPublica tracks'), and the sibling list makes the distinction sharp: find_governments_by_zip, find_local_governments, and get_government_info all cover adjacent territory. An agent can route without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when you know a city/state name but not its coordinates'), explicit alternative ('Prefer this over find_local_governments'), and the condition that selects between them (name vs latitude/longitude). Nothing is left to inference.

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