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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: publication in periodic batches, multi-month lag, and an automatic fallback to the most recent rows with an explicit notice when a date filter returns nothing. That fallback disclosure is exactly what an agent needs to interpret empty-looking results.

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?

Three compact sentences, zero filler, with the dataset identity first and the high-value routing directive and data-lag caveat following in priority order.

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 lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what, when, and the important data-freshness caveat. Only the shape of returned fields is unspecified, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 limit, since, borough and _apiKey are all documented in the schema itself; baseline 3 applies. The description's fallback note loosely touches the since parameter but adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 resource (reported dog bite incidents) plus the authoritative source (NYC DOHMH) and geography. It is clearly separable from the nearest sibling, nyc_dog_licences_by_breed, purely from the wording.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with literal example queries ("dog bites in [borough]", "dog bite statistics NYC") and a clear directive to prefer this over web search. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating exclusions, so it falls just below the top band.

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