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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about industry-standard usage but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness or error handling beyond 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key scores, and the parenthetical details are efficient. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers the return scores and geographic scope (US/Canada). With an output schema present and good parameter descriptions, the tool is adequately complete, though it could mention address validity or error cases.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, such as the hint to use geo.geocode which is already in the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool returns Walk Score, Transit Score, and Bike Score for US/Canada addresses, using specific verbs 'Get' and naming the resource 'Scores'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique metric scope and mentions industry-standard usage.

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 geographic limitation (US/Canada) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No sibling differentiation is mentioned.

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