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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: prefix matching semantics, that results distinguish ZIPs from persistent IDs, and the notable security constraint that a supplied URL is never treated as a fetch target.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and the prerequisite/safety caveats follow. Sentence fragments are dense but each carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description adds purpose, the search_areas prerequisite, matching semantics, and the URL-injection guard — enough for an agent to call this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden of the four parameters. It partially compensates by revealing that query is prefix-based and that area_id is state-qualified, but limit (default 5, max 10) and cursor (pagination) get no explanation anywhere in the description or schema.

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 ("Find streets") plus the matching mode ("by name prefix") and scope ("one state-qualified site area"), which an agent can act on. It references the sibling search_areas but does not distinguish itself from compare_streets or get_street_context, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

"Use search_areas first" gives an explicit prerequisite ordering, and "one state-qualified site area" implies the single-area scope constraint. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over compare_streets or get_street_context, so there are no real exclusions beyond the one prerequisite.

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