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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds behavioral context: 'Updates: daily,' the data sources blended (hospital admission rates, seasonal patterns, BLS employment), and output structure. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational details, though it omits any limitation or side-effect information—acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 compact three-sentence paragraph: it front-loads the core output, then provides usage guidance, and finishes with update frequency. No sentence is wasted; technical details like data sources are relevant to understanding the forecast.

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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently lists return fields (score, trend, confidence, top_drivers) and explains the forecast nature. It also covers update cadence and intended use cases. The optional parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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% for the single optional 'days' parameter, which is thoroughly described in the input schema (history series, range, Gold tier requirement). The description itself adds no parameter-specific details, so the 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 'Returns a 0-100 nursing-staff shortage risk score' with specific output components (score, trend, confidence, top_drivers). The verb 'Returns' and resource 'nursing-staff shortage risk score' make the purpose unambiguous, and the title and content distinguish it from sibling tools focused on other risk domains.

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 explicitly states when to call: 'Call when the user asks about hospital staffing gaps, nurse shortages, or healthcare labor-market tightness, or when timing travel-nurse contracts, float-pool deployment, or nurse recruiting spend.' This provides clear context, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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