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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing execution traits: it 'Starts the bound Apify Actor with the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, and returns at most 1,000 source-linked rows without modifying government records.' This adds cost, timeout, row-limit, and non-mutation specifics that annotations do not cover, and it does not contradict the provided 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?

The description is three sentences, tightly written, with the purpose and exclusions front-loaded, followed by execution behavior and constraints. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the key contextual needs: purpose, exclusions, cost, timeout, row limit, and non-modification. It could have described the output structure in more detail, but 'source-linked rows' plus the schema-level promise of run receipts in the cities parameter provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, with every parameter having a meaningful description (e.g., date patterns, defaults, enums). The tool description does not elaborate on individual parameters, but it does add overall context about row limits and non-modification. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not need to add per-parameter detail.

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's purpose: 'official restaurant inspection scores, violations, and facility-history research in supported jurisdictions.' It also explicitly excludes 'general property-code violations or childcare inspections,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like property-violations and childcare-licensing. This is a specific verb-resource pairing with clear boundaries.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use for official restaurant inspection scores... Do not use for general property-code violations or childcare inspections.' It also clarifies the supported jurisdictions are those listed in the schema, giving agents clear selection criteria without needing to inspect siblings.

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