311 service requests near a location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are aggregated "with counts by request type," which is useful, but it says nothing about radius defaults, limits, or data freshness that would go beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the counts-by-type statement covers the shape of the result. A proximity query with fully described params is well covered, though it omits the geographic service area constraint (Mecklenburg County) present in the schema.

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 every parameter (days, limit, location, radius_miles, request_type) is already documented in the schema, including example addresses and type filters. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (reported), resource (311 service requests), and scope (near a location, with counts by request type). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like get_crime_near and get_traffic_crashes_near, though the description never explicitly names a sibling to route against.

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?

"Shows whether a problem (pothole, missed pickup, dumping, streetlight) was already reported" implies a use case — checking for duplicate/existing reports — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance relative to the many other '*_near' siblings.

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