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

Annotations only cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, but the description adds substantial non-structured behavior: it always hits live FCC Open Data even when the Form 477 mirror is enabled, requires no BDC credentials, must be paged via nextOffset until absent, and computes no total match count. None of this is derivable from annotations.

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-loaded with the core action and resource, then dense behavioral and linkage notes. Every sentence carries real information (disambiguation, downstream linkage, freshness, pagination), though the block is fairly long and could be slightly tighter.

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 no explanation, and the description still covers the critical non-obvious facts: live-data behavior, credential requirements, the absence of a total count, and how to choose the values for the downstream coverage tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond it: name should carry a location qualifier (e.g., state) to disambiguate, CBSA codes do not encode state membership, and offset should be advanced via nextOffset until absent. These are genuine usage semantics layered on top of 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 (Find) and resource (census places and CBSAs / metro areas) scoped to the 2021 FCC geography lookup. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like fcc_geocode_block or fcc_search_providers without opening the 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 context: it names the downstream tool (fcc_get_coverage_summary) that consumes the returned geography_type/geography_id and advises adding a location qualifier to name to narrow results. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the other search siblings, but the operational context is well conveyed.

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