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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, and idempotentHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context: the jurisdictional classification nuance ('jurisdiction.classification separates the tiers... current_role.org_classification does not') and the include=offices tip. No contradiction with annotations, and the added context goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail pagination or error cases, which are minor.

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?

Five sentences, each packing a distinct piece of information: purpose, tier breakdown, classification nuance, geocoding limitation, and include advice. No repetition of schema text, and the structure front-loads the core action. It is slightly long but does not waste words; every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers all essential operational context: both tiers, classification caveat, no geocoding, and the include trick. For a read-only, idempotent lookup tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning: it gives concrete coordinate examples ('47.6062 for Seattle, WA'), explains the include enum values in detail (offices, links, other_names, etc.), and explicitly calls out that include=offices returns contact information. This is far beyond the schema and helps an agent construct proper calls without guesswork.

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 opens with 'Find every legislator representing a geographic coordinate — both tiers,' which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. It immediately distinguishes this from siblings like 'search_people' by focusing on location-based lookup and explicitly mentions both state and federal tiers, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly states use cases ('constituent-to-representative matching, address-based policy research, and electoral boundary analysis') and provides an important limitation ('This server does not geocode addresses — the caller must provide decimal-degree coordinates'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to prefer search_people), so it lacks an exclusion clause. Still, the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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