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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the request is posted publicly to a gap board and results come back by email, so the agent learns the side effect and the async follow-up path. It does not warn that repeat submissions create duplicate gaps, which is the practical consequence of idempotentHint=false.

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 purpose, then the side effect and follow-up path, then the misuse restriction. Nothing is padding.

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?

With three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the email follow-up and the public gap-board side effect but leaves the 'place' parameter and the returned response entirely unexplained. It is adequate to understand intent but thin for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains 'email' (where the reply goes) and implies 'question' is the record sought, but 'place' is never mentioned and no formats or examples are given for any parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Ask SOS.city to find a public record') and scopes it to records 'that isn't in the library', which implicitly separates it from search_library and search_records. It does not name those siblings outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

It gives a clear use condition (a record missing from the library) and an explicit prohibition ('Never for locating or profiling a person'), which is a real exclusion rule an agent can act on. It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use instead for in-library lookups.

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