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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the return includes a score breakdown and recommendation, providing behavioral context about output. No side effects or additional traits are disclosed, but the safety profile is clear.

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 extremely concise with two focused sentences: the first clearly states the core function, and the second adds relevant context (factors and return). No filler or repetition, earning full marks.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but assumed), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input hints, factors considered, and return type. For a simple scoring tool with two string parameters, this is fully complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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% with clear descriptions for both 'trade' (list of allowed categories) and 'region' (slug format, hints for discovery). The description mentions factors used in scoring but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool calculates an opportunity score (0-100) for a trade+region combination, using specific verb 'Calculate' and resource 'opportunity score'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like formation.demand_hotspots (region discovery) and formation.recommend_trade (trade recommendation), making its role unique.

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 explains the tool considers factors like shortage severity and growth trends, and explicitly directs users to use formation.demand_hotspots to discover regions. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or compare it to other scoring or recommendation tools.

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