Query 311 Service Request Trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned data shape (categories, volumes, monthly trends) and a US-only scope restriction, which is useful context. It omits read-only/auth/rate-limit or any pagination behavior, but for a plainly read-only analytics call this is a modest, not severe, gap.

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?

Purpose and returns are front-loaded efficiently, but the block of thirteen broken '[object Object]' city entries is pure wasted space that interrupts the flow. The remaining prose is tight, so the structure is acceptable but not clean.

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 simple two-parameter query with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, outputs, scope, and usage reasonably well. The critical gap is the unreadable 'Available cities' list: the one piece of information an agent needs to pass a valid city is effectively missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The only parameter-related value the description attempts to add is the 'Available cities' list, but it renders as malformed placeholders ('[object Object]'), giving the agent no usable enumeration and arguably adding noise rather than meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyze 311 service request trends') and enumerates the concrete outputs (top complaint categories, request volumes, monthly trends). This clearly separates it from siblings like query_homelessness, query_traffic, or query_city_data, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 'Great for understanding what residents are actually reporting' line implies context and 'US only' sets a scope boundary, so usage is somewhat guided. However, no alternatives or when-not conditions are named (e.g., versus query_city_data), leaving the agent to infer the distinction between this and its siblings.

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