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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful cost context ('free') and lists the identifier types returned, but it omits pagination behavior and any throttling or scope constraints. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant or filler 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?

There is no output schema, so listing the returned identifier types is useful. But for a five-parameter tool with only 20% schema description coverage, the description leaves several parameters and pagination behavior unexplained. It is adequate for a quick lookup but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is only 20%, and only the 'state' parameter has inline documentation. The description mentions a name query but does not explain the required 'q' parameter, the pagination parameters 'page' and 'per_page', or how the 'type' enum filters results. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns location identifiers for a name query, including FIPS, ZIP, city place, state, and county IDs. This is clearly a location-resolution lookup rather than a property/person search, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other search-like siblings.

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 implies this is a lightweight lookup that can be used to turn a name query into location IDs, and notes that it is read-only and free. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools or what prerequisites, if any, apply.

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