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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the content (species/practices) but does not state output format, sorting, or that it is a read-only operation. The lack of explicit behavioral details leaves agents guessing about the return structure.

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 a single sentence but uses convoluted phrasing ('The goods Find My Farmer publishes...' with an em dash) and does not start with a verb. It is not maximally concise or front-loaded, though it covers the essential point.

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?

The description explains what goods are and their relationship to price_stats and find_near, and hints at item structure (species/practices). However, without an output schema, it doesn't fully specify the return type or other behaviors like pagination, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output and adds no parameter-related ambiguity because none exist.

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 identifies the tool as listing goods for reports/price statistics and links to price_stats and find_near. The verb is implied ('goods' rather than an explicit 'List' or 'Returns'), but the resource and scope are clear and differentiated from siblings like list_places or list_hubs.

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?

It explicitly ties the returned goods to the slugs accepted by price_stats and find_near, telling agents that this is the source for valid goods for those tools. It doesn't contrast with all siblings but provides strong routing context for two major consumers.

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