blv_get_food_control_results

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context (returns results and violation rates) but does not contradict annotations. With annotations present, the description's contribution is adequate but not extensive.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains zero redundant or unnecessary words. It is highly efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but noted) and 3 simple parameters fully documented in the schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use case. It does not require additional information about return values or complex behavior, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (canton, year, limit), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'food inspection results and violation rates' and provides a use case for comparison across cantons or years. While it is specific, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the domain (food control vs. animal health, etc.), but the name and context make it clear.

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 includes a 'use case' that suggests when to use the tool (comparing inspection volumes and violation rates), but it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives among siblings. This is an implied guidance, not explicit.

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