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

Annotations already declare this is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: supporting hosts render the card or map inline, while text-only hosts get a text result naming the matches. It does not cover no-match or error behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the output behavior and followed by host-rendering fallback details. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundant restatement.

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 moderate-complexity visual-output tool with no output schema, the description covers the key output forms and text fallback. It remains implicit about the underlying data source and exactly what the text matches include.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including enums and defaults. The description reinforces the query/violation split but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific output behavior: it returns an MCP App card for a restaurant name or a map for a violation term in a city. The purpose is clear enough to call, but it does not explicitly name inspection records or differentiate itself from siblings like search_restaurants.

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?

Implies usage based on query type: restaurant name for a card, violation term plus city for a map, and notes host rendering support. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives among the sibling tools.

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