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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what hubs are but does not mention any behavioral traits like filtering behavior, ordering, pagination, or return format. For a simple list tool, some detail about how the province filter affects results would be expected.

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-loaded with the core action ('List Find My Farmer hubs') and immediately clarifies the domain. No wasted words; it earns its place.

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 simplicity (one optional filter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It defines hubs, states the purpose, and hints at the use case. It could mention that the province filter is available, but that's in the schema. Overall, sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single optional parameter 'province' described as 'Two-letter province/state code filter.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List Find My Farmer hubs' and explains what hubs are (named local-food regions/foodsheds). It also gives a use case ('narrowing a farm search to a place'), which helps distinguish it from generic search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_places or search_farms, so it's slightly short of a 5.

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 provides a hint about when to use it: 'Useful for narrowing a farm search to a place.' This implies a use case but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It's adequate but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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