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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a useful behavior: SoQL clauses are passed without the leading $, and the return format is JSON. It does not mention pagination defaults, rate limits, or how the open-world nature affects result shapes, but with annotations covering the core safety traits, the extra detail is adequate.

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. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource with an example id; the second lists the supported clauses and the return format. Every clause contributes information and there is no redundant text.

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, the schema covers parameter semantics, and the description provides the core action, syntax rule, and return format. However, it doesn't mention that resource_id typically comes from the datasets tool, nor does it describe any error behavior or column discovery. Given no output schema, the return-format statement is helpful, but an agent might still need to learn about dataset schemas elsewhere. Overall it's largely sufficient but not exhaustive.

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?

All 7 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping where/select/group/order and clarifying that SoQL clauses should omit the leading $, which is a subtle but important syntax detail not explicit in the schema descriptions. It also lists limit/offset as pagination controls, reinforcing 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Run'), a resource ('Socrata SoQL query against a New Jersey Open Data dataset'), and a required identifier ('by resource_id' with an example). This clearly differentiates it from generic query tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_within or datasets, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 use when you want to run a SoQL query on a New Jersey Open Data dataset, and the phrase 'by resource_id' hints at a prerequisite (obtain the id, likely from the datasets tool). However, it offers no explicit 'when to use this vs. alternatives' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when a different tool like search_within would be better.

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