Trash and recycling schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral context is geographic scope ('in Charlotte'), which is worth noting since the schema's parameter description says Mecklenburg County — a slightly broader area. No mention of data freshness or holiday-shifted pickups.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool returns, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the essentials are covered: purpose, input form, and geographic scope. The remaining gap is the Charlotte vs. Mecklenburg County scope ambiguity and the absence of any sibling routing.

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 parameter description already gives address and 'latitude,longitude' examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only says 'an address' and omits the coordinate form the schema explicitly supports, adding no meaning 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 names a specific resource — garbage, recycling, and yard-waste collection days — scoped to an address in Charlotte, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling address tools such as lookup_address or get_address_profile, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many address-oriented siblings. The agent gets a topic but no routing logic.

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