mn_lake_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds valuable context by listing return fields (IDs, names, counties, acreage, max depth) and explaining the relationship with mn_lake_detail. No contradictions 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?

Three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, return fields, and next step. No filler or redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing return fields and pointing to the detail tool. Combined with the readOnlyHint annotation, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with the parameter 'name' already described with examples. The tool description adds the context that searching is by name but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('Minnesota lakes') and scope ('by name'). It differentiates from sibling mn_lake_detail by explicitly directing users to use the lake ID with mn_lake_detail for full information, and the tool name itself implies differentiation from mn_lake_nearby.

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?

States when to use (search by name) and provides a clear follow-up step (use lake ID with mn_lake_detail). It does not explicitly mention using mn_lake_nearby for location-based searches, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the tool's role.

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