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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context: data source (Authorities Budget Office), the primary-market limitation, and the infrequent trading of most municipal bonds. 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 informative but slightly verbose. It front-loads the purpose, lists return fields, gives examples, and ends with a caveat. The caveat is essential for setting expectations. A tighter version could trim redundancy, but it remains well-structured and readable.

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 search tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the data source, scope, and limitations, and provides usage examples. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but those are less critical given the annotations and the nature of a search tool.

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% and every parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'authority' matched loosely). The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

States a specific verb (Search), a specific resource (New York municipal bond and debt issues sold by public authorities), and enumerates the returned fields. The example queries make the purpose concrete, and the scope (primary-market issuance) distinguishes it from siblings like ny_authority_debt_totals or ny_authority_debt_profile.

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?

Gives example questions ('what bonds did the Dormitory Authority issue') that show when to use it, and explicitly states what is not included (secondary-market trade prices). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast them, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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