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

The description discloses that community figures are structured estimates, not official measurements, which is important behavioral context. It also explains the reconciliation to provincial totals, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe, though this is implied by the tool name.

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 paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does and what it returns, including the methodology and data source caveat. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 tool has no parameters, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. However, it provides context about what the tool returns, which indirectly relates to its use with no parameters.

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 clearly states that the tool provides modeled community GDP for Saskatchewan, with specific details on data sources and methodology. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_community_economy by offering a province-wide overview.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_community_economy or compare_outcomes. No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.

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