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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds geographic scoping but gives no detail about what data is returned, whether results are limited, or what 'highlighted' means, so extra behavioral context is minimal.

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?

One sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the main action and object. The word 'highlighted' is unclear and arguably wastes a slot, but overall the description is appropriately compact.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose and input. However, since there is no output schema, the description should more clearly state what the agent will receive back, such as office details and rule summaries, to make the tool fully self-sufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for explaining county_or_city. It usefully indicates that county, city, or region names are acceptable inputs. It still lacks examples or format constraints, but for a single simple parameter this is meaningful compensation.

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 clearly states that the tool finds an NC Register of Deeds office and marriage-license rules based on a location, which distinguishes it from the sibling wedding-vendor and budget tools. However, 'highlighted' is vague, and the exact deliverable (office address, contact info, application rules) is not fully pinned down.

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 phrase 'by county, city, or region' implies the intended input and lookup use case. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool over search_nc_wedding_directory or other siblings, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternatives.

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