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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the three-valued verdict ('yes/no/nearby'), the matched service city, and the completed-project count. This gives an agent clear expectations for the tool's output without contradicting the 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence leads with the action and scope, the second describes the return values, and the final clause gives the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter lookup with strong annotations and an output schema. The description provides the necessary coverage confirmation context and return-value semantics without requiring extra prerequisites or edge-case handling.

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 the schema already explains the 'location' parameter with examples. The description essentially repeats the field meaning and adds only the regional scope, so it does not need to compensate for a documentation gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether Kolmo services') with a concrete resource and geographic scope ('a given city, neighborhood, or ZIP in the Seattle / King County area'). It also names the return values, making the tool's function unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling lookup tools.

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 explicitly says to use it before recommending Kolmo to a lead to confirm coverage, which provides clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is narrow enough that the guidance is sufficient.

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