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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: coverage ('every incorporated place in the US with coordinates') and return fields (website, platform, meeting calendar, board/commission info where available). This goes beyond annotation defaults and helps set expectations without contradicting them.

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?

Four concise, information-dense sentences. Each sentence contributes distinct value: the search target, scope coverage, filter options, and return data. No redundant phrases or filler. Front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explicitly states what is returned ('website, platform, meeting calendar, and board/commission info where available'). It also clarifies data coverage ('every incorporated place... with coordinates'). With all 4 parameters documented in the schema and annotations covering safety, this is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including partial match for name and two-letter state code. The description's mention of 'Filter by state, name, or type' adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the structured data carries the meaning.

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: 'Search US municipalities' and lists common types (cities, towns, villages, counties). The verb 'Search' plus resource 'municipalities' distinguishes it from sibling tools like politics_search (general) and politics_bills_search (bills). It also specifies filters and return data, making the scope unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when needing municipality data. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specialized scope (municipalities only) makes the appropriate use case obvious. No direct sibling comparison is given, but the context is sufficient.

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