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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added job is semantics — and it delivers a genuinely useful caveat that the returned items are authored templates, not empirical demand signals. That prevents an agent from mis-citing the output as evidence of search volume, which no annotation conveys. Return shape and template structure are left unstated.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what is returned and the scoping keys, the second immediately qualifies how to interpret it. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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 read-only, two-required-enum lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and interpretation caveats adequately. The one gap is that it does not describe what a returned template looks like (e.g., question text, category, count), which an agent must know to use the results — though with no output schema that burden falls more heavily on the description than it does here.

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%, but both parameters are closed enums that fully enumerate valid values, so the schema constrains inputs tightly. The description maps 'metro' to city and 'service' to the vertical, but never explains the service values (trades like roofing, hvac, estate-planning-attorney) or what an invalid pairing means, so it adds only modest meaning beyond the 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 ('Return configured city-specific monitoring question templates') and scopes it to a metro/service pair. It also draws a clear semantic boundary by saying these are not observed searches or volumes, which separates it conceptually from data-oriented siblings. It does not name a specific alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the use case — retrieving PressGEO research templates for a given market — but never states explicitly when to call this instead of get_local_factsheet, get_local_market, or other siblings. The 'not observed user searches / not proof a question was tested' line functions as an interpretation warning rather than tool-selection guidance.

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