Find a county by name or FIPS

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool performs fuzzy matching and returns specific data, which is transparent about its output. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, input format, and return value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the input and output clearly. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any prerequisites or common errors.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the parameter 'query' with a description. The tool description adds value by providing examples and clarifying the fuzzy-matching behavior, which goes beyond the schema's static description.

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 clearly states that the tool performs fuzzy matching to find a county by name or FIPS code, and lists the specific information returned (endpoint URLs, fields, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_counties by focusing on lookup rather than listing.

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 provides usage examples and input formats (e.g., 'Kane IL', FIPS code), which helps the agent understand when and how to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like list_counties.

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