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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral constraints: every bucket covers at least 3 farms, no price is attributed to a farm, and it is the public/unattributable side of the FARM-VOICE rule. This adds meaningful transparency about privacy and aggregation. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'aggregate' and the absence of any mutation verbs imply a non-destructive query.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality and outputs, the second explains the key privacy rule. Every clause adds value, with no filler. It is well-structured and easily scannable.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete. It specifies the statistics returned, the counting fields, the as-of dates, the anonymity guarantee, and the source. An agent has all the information needed to call it correctly and interpret the expected result, even without an output schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters ('good' and 'province') are already well documented. The description adds general context about the tool's purpose but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format examples or additional constraints). It mentions 'for a good' and 'nationally or in one province' which maps to the parameters, but that is a restatement rather than new semantic detail.

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 ('Aggregate') and clearly identifies the resource (price statistics) with the exact fields (low/median/mean/high, counts, as-of dates). It also specifies the scope (for a good, nationally or by province) and the source (Find My Farmer's price ledger), making it unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools without needing to compare.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when aggregate, unattributable price statistics are needed for a good, either nationally or for a province. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer its purpose. The omission of explicit 'when not to use' guidance prevents a 5.

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