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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers: the 'unknown = no expiry date on record, not lapsed' semantic clarification, the city+province grouping rationale, and the 25k row cap with truncated-flag instruction. These go well beyond what the schema or annotations could convey.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose and output composition, grouping behavior, use cases, cross-reference advice, and an operational warning. Information is front-loaded with the core ranking statement first and no filler.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it describes the return composition, the grouping key, the meaning of the unknown status, the row cap with a follow-up action, and target use cases. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly is left unexplained.

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%, so all four parameters (law, year, limit, region) are already documented and baseline is 3. The description adds only general operational guidance ('narrow filters if true') rather than param-specific semantic detail, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Rank cities by LTS count' — and enumerates the output dimensions (province, region, law breakdown, active/expired/unknown split, top developer). The city-centric aggregation clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lts_by_developer, lts_by_law, and lts_by_region.

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?

States explicit use cases — housing pressure indices, city-level market analysis, emerging development hotspots — and adds cross-referencing guidance with PSGC MCP. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or named sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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