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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (it covers streets, blocks, and directory years, and each street has its own page), but says nothing about result size, ordering, or the shape of the returned coverage data.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, front-loading the geographic scope. The trailing clause 'with each street's page' is slightly cryptic but does not bloat the text.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but barely adequate. It does not explain what the response looks like or what an agent should do with 'each street's page', leaving a gap the structured fields cannot fill.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the resource (Vancouver streets, blocks and directory years) but uses a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states what the tool actually does (return a list? a summary? links?). It is distinguishable from find_house and house_history by being about coverage scope rather than a specific property, but the action remains implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus find_house or house_history, nor any precondition such as 'call this first to see if a street is covered'. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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