san_antonio_311

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by specifying the types of service calls (non-emergency), the filterable fields, and the authoritative data source, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's scope.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and providing useful examples. No filler or redundant information; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's functionality and data source.

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's moderate complexity (6 optional parameters, no output schema) and good annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool searches, what filters are available, and the authoritative source. It does not explain return format or pagination, but that is not required when no output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters with types, defaults, and examples. The description merely restates the filterable dimensions (category, type, department, status, council district) without adding new semantics beyond the schema, resulting in the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('San Antonio 311 service calls') and enumerates example categories (streets, animal services, code compliance). It also lists filter dimensions, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like san_antonio_nws_alerts or san_antonio_tea_schools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (for non-emergency San Antonio city services) by stating its scope and authoritative source. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over others.

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