GovNavigator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns relevant ordinance sections with citations' which describes the output behavior, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 well-structured and efficiently organized with clear sections: purpose statement, usage scenarios, return value description, and concrete query examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the format of returned results (e.g., structured data vs text snippets).

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query formatting or result ranking). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as searching Madison, WI municipal code/ordinances for specific topics, with specific examples of regulations (fences, parking, noise, permits). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_ordinance_details' by focusing on search rather than detailed retrieval.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, listing specific user question types (city regulations, what is allowed/prohibited, requirements, penalties/fees) and includes concrete examples of good queries. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool for detailed ordinance retrieval.

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