Get published places query schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an introspection/metadata operation, mentions safety limits, license-gate metadata, and even 'honest null completion semantics.' It could add auth/rate-limit details, but for a schema-lookup tool it is notably transparent.

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 a single information-dense sentence with the key object front-loaded. The long enumeration of metadata types is slightly run-on, but every listed element contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description thoroughly catalogs what will be returned: columns, descriptions, contract, limits, release/provenance, license metadata, and null semantics. The required parameter is fully covered by the schema. Minor gaps like output shape and failure behavior do not undermine selection or invocation.

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?

The single parameter 'county' is already fully documented in the input schema (format, example, constraints). The description only reinforces 'for a county' without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 opens with a strong verb, 'Returns', and names a highly specific resource: published places parquet columns, field descriptions, the queryPlaces contract, safety limits, and metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from property/permits query-schema siblings.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is for county-level published places schema information and explicitly ties to the queryPlaces contract. It does not include explicit exclusions or list alternatives, but the resource naming makes when-to-use unambiguous.

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