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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral nuance that SoQL clauses should be passed 'without the leading $', and it states the return format ('Returns matching rows as JSON'). This goes beyond the annotations and schema descriptions, providing useful execution context.

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 primary action, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently covers the querying mechanism, clause syntax, and return format with no wasted words.

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 query tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the input (resource_id), the query options (SoQL clauses, limit/offset), and the output (JSON). It does not mention default limits or error handling, but the schema covers default limit, and the description provides enough for an agent to proceed.

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. The description adds meaning by grouping parameters (where/select/group/order) and clarifying the no-$ syntax, which is not explicit in the individual schema descriptions. It also emphasizes resource_id as the key parameter, reinforcing the schema's required field.

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 the tool's function: 'Run a Socrata SoQL query against a Cook County Open Data dataset by resource_id'. It specifies the action (run), the resource (dataset), and the query language (SoQL), with an example resource_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'datasets' (which likely list datasets) by focusing on querying rows.

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 implies usage context: use this when you need to query rows from a specific dataset using SoQL filters. It mentions the key operation, but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use datasets to find resource_id'). Still, the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool.

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