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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: responses carry source attribution and license state, the layer lacks street name/side/route attributes, street lookups are answered via centerline-to-polygon intersection, and ambiguous two-day values are reported as published rather than guessed. These are real operational constraints an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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 content is valuable but the prose is bloated and partly repetitive, stating twice that every response names its source and license state, and opening with provenance before the core purpose. It is reasonably front-loaded but several sentences could be compressed without loss.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does describe the semantic content of an answer (named zones, uninterpreted two-day values, source and license). It does not enumerate concrete response fields, but for a single-publisher read-only tool it is close to complete.

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 and the baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond that: it clarifies the resolution mechanism for `street` (City street centerlines intersected with zone polygons) and the shape of the result, and reinforces that `day` is limited to the published Monday-Friday range.

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 returns City of Long Beach street sweeping schedules read live from the City's published ArcGIS feature service. It also pins down exactly what the data is (336 polygons with only DAYS and HOUR attributes). It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. city_gis or city_datasets) as the alternative for broader queries, so it does not fully differentiate within the city_* family.

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?

It gives concrete invocation guidance: call with `street`, with `day`, with both, or with neither to see every published schedule, and explains that a street lookup returns the zones a street runs through rather than one schedule per address. That is clear usage context, but there is no explicit when-not or pointer to an alternative tool for cases this tool can't answer.

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