City capital projects near a location

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 covered by structured data. The description adds what the records contain (phase, schedule, budget, PM contact), which is useful content context, but says nothing about ordering, spatial matching behavior, or result truncation. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then a useful content summary. No filler or repetition. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, which is a minor deduction at most.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is spatial semantics: how radius_miles interacts with location, whether results are ranked by distance, and when this tool should be chosen over its near-location siblings.

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 75%, with location, limit and radius_miles documented in-schema and phase left undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as units, default radius behavior, or how 'near' is defined relative to radius_miles. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema handles most of the parameter burden.

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 (get) and resource (capital projects) plus a spatial scope (near a location). It enumerates what counts as a capital project (roads, sidewalks, parks, facilities), which disambiguates the resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from spatial siblings like get_311_requests_near or get_street_closures, but the resource is clear enough.

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?

No when-to-use statement and no alternatives named. The description never tells the agent when to prefer this over get_street_closures or get_pending_rezonings, even though several siblings share the 'near a location' spatial pattern. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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