well-015-municipal-notices

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), it discloses genuinely useful traits: per-call cost of $0.005 USDC, that results derive from cached public records, that content is facts-only with no advice, and that inputs are not retained. The disclaimer block, however, is repeated almost verbatim near the end and adds no new information the second time.

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 lead sentence and parameter list are front-loaded and efficient, but the closing boilerplate is duplicated ('As is, no warranty' / 'as is, no guarantee') and the caching disclaimer appears twice, wasting a meaningful share of a short description.

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 return value is described only as 'clean items with source links' – the agent cannot tell what fields an item has or how links are formatted. Parameter semantics and behavior are otherwise well covered, so the gap is narrow but real for a data-retrieval tool.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by expanding the terse `area` enum values into what each area actually contains (Buffalo: Planning Board/ZBA agendas plus Erie County tax-foreclosure auction docs; Chicago: City Council zoning reclassifications). That tells the agent when a given area will and won't return what it wants, which the schema does not.

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 opening sentence names the resource and the output shape concretely: 'Recent public municipal notices as clean items with source links,' with cost stated up front. The two supported areas are then enumerated with the specific record types each covers (Planning Board/ZBA agendas, tax-foreclosure docs vs. zoning reclassifications), which makes the scope unambiguous. There are no siblings to differentiate against, so it caps below 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells the agent what areas and filters exist but never states when this tool is the right choice, when it isn't, or what to do if a needed area isn't listed. With no siblings, alternative-routing guidance isn't expected, but preconditions and limits on the query are absent.

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