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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the schema: it returns every dataset with specific fields, is scoped to 'one public data source,' and notes 'Every response names its source.' These details help an agent anticipate the response shape and source behavior.

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 only two sentences but packs in the tool's purpose, output fields, the source default, and its role in the city_records workflow. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage directive is front-loaded in the second sentence without being buried.

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 compensates by listing the exact fields returned and the source-naming behavior. It also clarifies the tool's role as a prerequisite for city_records, addresses the optional parameter's default, and provides enough guidance for an agent to call it correctly. There are no critical gaps.

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% for the sole parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats what the schema already tells us: that 'source' is optional and defaults to 'longbeach'. The added phrase about the City of Long Beach portal is contextually helpful but does not meaningfully change an agent's understanding of the parameter beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: it lists the open data catalog, enumerating exactly which fields are returned (id, title, description, record count, last-modified date, license). It also distinguishes itself from city_records by explaining it is the discovery-first step that supplies dataset ids. This is far beyond a vague or tautological statement.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Call this first to discover which dataset ids city_records accepts,' which gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the natural follow-up tool. It does not enumerate exclusions for other siblings, but it provides enough context to route an agent correctly for the discovery workflow.

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