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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safely-read profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that: it explains the opaque-id → fetch handoff, the URL-as-scope (not text) resolution rules, and that empty results mean no matches rather than a permissions failure with a retry-broader-keywords remedy — genuinely useful operational context.

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?

Long but organized into purpose, URL semantics, WHEN/WHEN NOT, and worked examples, with the core purpose front-loaded. The opening nominal phrase ('Anything about a city council, mayor, ...') is slightly list-heavy, but every section carries routing or interpretation value.

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 details are not required, yet the description still explains the id→fetch workflow that makes the output usable. Combined with the URL-scoping rules and empty-result interpretation, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool correctly.

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 100% for the single query parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond 'Free-text search query' — how embedded OpenCity/state URLs are parsed as scope, and that a bare URL returns that scope's most recent activity — which materially changes how the agent should construct the value.

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+resource ('Combined keyword search across public city-government meeting transcripts AND meeting documents') and enumerates the covered content types (ordinances, zoning, agendas, budgets). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_meetings, search_documents, and list_officials, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Dedicated WHEN and WHEN NOT sections: prefers this tool for auto-routing clients and pasted OpenCity URLs, and explicitly routes to filtered siblings when they are available. Both the trigger conditions and the alternatives are named, leaving little to inference.

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