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 beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool returns JSON, and clarifies the SoQL syntax requirement (no leading $). It does not mention rate limits or auth, but with the annotation coverage that is acceptable. The added details are meaningful and do not contradict the 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?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the operational details in the second. Every word serves a purpose, and the example resource_id adds clarity. This is an example of efficient writing.

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 a simple schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description covers everything an agent needs: the resource identifier, the available SoQL clauses, the syntax nuance, and the output format. Pagination and default limits are already in the schema. No critical information 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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds value by framing the parameters as SoQL clauses and explicitly noting that the leading $ should be omitted—a nuance not in the schema. It also mentions limit/offset as pagination controls. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions, so it earns a 4.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Socrata SoQL query against a Pennsylvania Open Data dataset by resource_id'), with a concrete example ID. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'datasets' (which likely list datasets) and 'metadata' (which likely describe a dataset), since it focuses on querying rows. The return format is also stated.

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 a workflow: you need a resource_id (likely from the 'datasets' sibling) and then run a query. It explains the SoQL clauses that can be used and the leading-$ rule, giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it—when row-level data is needed. A slight gap is the lack of an explicit 'use this when...' statement, but the implication is strong.

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