get_district_advisor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms read-only behavior by stating it 'shows' and 'returns' data. It adds that the return is 'valid placement tiles ranked by adjacency bonus', which provides behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 sentences: purpose, args, return/usage. Every sentence adds value. No fluff. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the tool is read-only with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers what it does, parameters, return value, and next step. It is fully adequate for an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds critical meaning: city_id is from get_cities, district_type examples are given (DISTRICT_CAMPUS, etc.). This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could include more format details.

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 shows best tiles for district placement with adjacency bonuses. It specifies the resource ('best tiles'), action ('show'), and criteria. The verb 'Show' is specific and the resource is distinct from sibling advisors.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (for district placement advice) and provides a follow-up action ('Use set_city_production...'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context of sibling names makes it clear. The guidance is strong.

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