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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere. It adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: partial local coverage, an obligation to retain source verification dates, and the caveat that a missing holder is not proof of a vacancy. It does not discuss result ordering or pagination, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by coverage scope and interpretive caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing is telegraphic and the coverage/sourcing points could be consolidated slightly.

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-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs for correct interpretation — incomplete local coverage, sourcing dates, and the vacancy caveat. The main residual gap is sibling routing, which is left implicit.

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 50%: 'level' and 'state' are documented in-schema (including the useful 'not the user's location' clarification). The description adds meaning to 'q' by enumerating acceptable match keys (official name, office title, jurisdiction), but says nothing about 'limit' or how the keys combine.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Search permanent public offices and their sourced holders') plus the three search keys (official name, office title, jurisdiction). It also carves out a scope boundary ('Not an address-to-representative lookup'), which helps separate it from lookup-style tools. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like search_governments or search_candidates.

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?

Coverage guidance ('federal, state, executive and selected local ... local coverage is incomplete') and an explicit exclusion ('Not an address-to-representative lookup') give some sense of fit, but no sibling alternative is named for the excluded use case. An agent must still infer whether to route to search_governments or search_candidates.

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