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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies the SoQL syntax requirement (no leading $), the default limit (Socrata 1000), and the return format (JSON rows). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then immediately gives the essential syntax rule and return format. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a read-only query tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: resource_id format, SoQL clause syntax, pagination (limit/offset), and return type. It could mention error cases or dataset availability, but those are not necessary for correct invocation. The annotations cover safety, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with examples. The description adds the crucial detail that SoQL clauses should be passed without the leading $, which is not in the schema, but it does not need to repeat parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description adds a small but important clarification.

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 ('Run'), a specific resource ('Socrata SoQL query against a Colorado Information Marketplace dataset by resource_id'), and gives a concrete example ID. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'datasets' or 'metadata' by focusing on querying rows with SoQL clauses.

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 description explains how to use the tool (SoQL clauses without leading $, plus limit/offset) and implies it is for querying dataset rows, which differentiates it from 'datasets' (listing datasets) and 'metadata' (dataset metadata). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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