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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses what comes back (source-backed institution records, office contacts, enriched coverage, record links) and warns that results are directory entries that may not reflect current officials or exact boundaries. It does not mention result caps or pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then return contents, then caveats — a sensible order with no filler. The caveat sentences are short and each carries a distinct constraint, though the block of four trailing disclaimers is slightly dense relative to the one-line core.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers what the tool searches, what it returns, and the main interpretive pitfalls, which is sufficient for a 3-parameter read-only search.

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 67%, with the schema already explaining the query-matching behavior for `q` and the state-vs-user-location distinction for `state`. The description adds nothing about parameters, and `limit` (default 3, max 5) is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap it does not compensate for.

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) and a precise resource set (named cities, counties, school systems and special districts) within a named directory, which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_candidates and search_offices. An agent can tell from the first sentence that this is the jurisdiction-lookup tool, not a people or office lookup.

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 clear scope boundaries — similar names may be different jurisdictions, inclusion doesn't establish current officials, and it does not locate a user's home or private contacts. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool or stating when a sibling (e.g. search_offices) is the better pick, so routing is implied rather than prescribed.

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