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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: OpenPublica's limited US-locality coverage and the fact that an empty result means nothing is tracked nearby yet. That coverage caveat is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the practical use of the return value and the coverage caveat. No filler.

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 highlights the one field that matters (account_id) and the coverage caveat. For a simple geo-lookup tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so longitude, latitude, and limit are already fully documented (including range bounds). The description adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Discover which governments OpenPublica tracks near a coordinate'), and the coordinate-based mechanism implicitly separates it from the by_name and by_zip siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 the downstream workflow: the returned account_id can be passed to other tools to scope results to a city or board. It also clarifies what an empty result means. It does not state when to prefer this over find_governments_by_name or by_zip.

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