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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real value beyond them: that it internally geocodes, resolves proximity, returns account_ids plus resolved location, and that an empty list means none tracked nearby yet. That last point is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose, with no wasted sentences. The wrapper explanation and empty-result note each earn their place.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return-shape explanation is not required, yet the description still clarifies what is returned (account_ids, resolved location) and the empty-result edge case. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 both postal_code (US ZIP example) and limit (1-50) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds the resolved-location/account_id semantics but no additional parameter syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (resolve) and resource (ZIP to nearby governments), and explicitly labels itself a convenience wrapper combining geocoding plus proximity lookup. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_governments_by_name or find_local_governments.

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?

Explains it geocodes then finds nearest tracked governments, giving a clear usage context. It does not explicitly say when to prefer find_governments_by_name or find_local_governments instead of this ZIP route, so no explicit exclusion/routing is offered.

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