Query published Overture places

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it state read-only, catalog-authorized scope, deterministic paging with totalCount, count-only mode, grouped aggregates, the prohibition on raw SQL/data URLs, and the 1000-row cap. These are genuine behavioral disclosures 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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then compresses many capabilities into one dense sentence. Every sentence contributes: purpose, feature summary, prerequisite, and constraints. It is concise but the long capability list is dense enough that it could be slightly easier to scan.

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?

Given a complex query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers modes, filter dimensions, count/aggregate behaviors, paging determinism, sequencing, and hard limits. It does not spell out the row return shape, but with 86% schema coverage and the feature summary this is still adequately complete.

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 86%, and the schema already gives per-parameter descriptions, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description summarizes capabilities (category filters, hierarchy roll-ups, modes) but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond schema; 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?

Description opens with a clear verb + resource: 'Run a structured read-only query over a county's catalog-authorized Overture places parquet.' This distinguishes queryPlaces from property/permit query siblings by resource and read-only intent. The title and first sentence align with no ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Call getPlaceQuerySchema first') and clear constraints ('Callers cannot provide SQL or data URLs; results are capped at 1000'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the Overture places resource makes the intended use case evident alongside queryProperties/queryPermits.

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