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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it resolves alternative spellings, returns multiple matches with state when ambiguous, and returns no data for ambiguous matches. The instruction to ask the user and call again with `state` is a meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with usage conditions and examples, with no wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose: when to use, what it resolves, and how to handle ambiguity.

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 simple lookup tool with readOnly annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the key behaviors: return values, ambiguity handling, alternative spellings, and the user-follow-up step. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of returned values and the ambiguous no-data case is sufficient.

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 the parameter docs already carry semantic weight for `name`, `state`, and `indicators`. The description reinforces the state-disambiguation flow but adds little new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already declares.

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: resolving an Indian district name to its objectid and returning its values. It contrasts clearly with siblings by anchoring usage to 'one named place', which separates it from compare_districts and rank_districts.

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 an explicit 'Use when' condition with concrete example questions ('tell me about Bilaspur', 'what is Pune's literacy rate'), and explains the disambiguation workflow. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives to use instead, but the single-place framing is clear enough to route away from compare and rank tools.

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