dfw_311

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating 'City of Dallas only (v0.1)' and clarifying the city parameter semantics, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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 concise with two main sentences plus a list of examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers scope, type examples, return fields, and authoritative source. It could mention pagination behavior explicitly, but with output schema present, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by explaining that 'street repair' corresponds to potholes and listing other official type names. It also describes the return fields, adding value beyond the schema.

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 'Search Dallas 311 service requests by address and/or type', specifying the verb (Search), resource (Dallas 311 service requests), and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., dfw_crime, dfw_health) by focusing on 311 requests for neighborhood quality-of-life research.

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 clear context, stating 'Use for neighborhood quality-of-life research' and noting the authoritative source. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings, the context implies it's for 311-specific queries, making it sufficient for an AI agent.

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