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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the lookup is backed by the Census Geocoder, it resolves districts, and it returns two distinct tiers of officials with listed fields. It does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or failure modes, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return scope, then closes with the geocoding constraint. The parenthetical field lists are somewhat dense, but each clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the returned fields for both federal and state officials, and it explains the required-input rationale. Combined with annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only edge-case behaviors (e.g., no-match handling) are unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining why street is required ('full street address', 'required for district-level lookup') and that zip is only an accuracy aid rather than an alternative to the street address, adding rationale the schema 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 ('Find everyone who represents a full street address') and enumerates exactly what is returned (Senators, House member, state legislators). An agent can distinguish this address-level lookup from siblings like get_representative_profile (single person) or list_state_delegation (whole state) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context and an explicit constraint: it requires a full street address because 'a ZIP code alone is not accepted because ZIPs cross district lines.' This is a meaningful when-not condition, but it doesn't name alternative tools for related lookups, so it stops short of the 5-level explicit routing.

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