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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description substantially expands on this with source, license state, preview status, and interpretation caveats. It discloses that the underlying layer lacks street names and sides, that two-day values are ambiguous, and that street lookups are done via centerline intersection. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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 long, but every block earns its place: preview/license warning, data shape, lookup semantics, ambiguity caveat, and invocation patterns. It is front-loaded with the most important operational caveat ('FOUNDER PREVIEW') and uses clear section markers. It could be tightened slightly, but it is structured and dense rather than padded.

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?

For a tool with zero required parameters, no output schema, and substantial data caveats, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the data actually contains, how street lookups behave, what the tool will not do, and what every response will include. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results without further exploration.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics: street lookups are resolved by intersecting the city centerline layer, day filters cover Monday–Friday, and two-day values are reported as published without guessing. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it.

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 clearly states the tool returns Long Beach street sweeping schedules read live from the City's ArcGIS feature service. It names the specific verb ('read'), the resource ('Long Beach GIS'), and the exact data domain, which distinguishes it from sibling city_gis/city_datasets/city_records tools. The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete invocation patterns: 'Call with `street`, with `day`, with both, or with neither to see every schedule the City publishes.' It also explains the founder-preview context and that the tool will not guess ambiguous two-day values. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the use context is clear.

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