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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: data source, trailing ~3-week baseline, daily refresh, and the specific output fields. It goes beyond the annotation by explaining what the score represents and how it is computed, without contradicting the read-only hint.

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 dense but well-organized paragraph. It front-loads the primary output, then provides usage triggers, and ends with the update frequency. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description plus schema cover the important aspects: what is returned, when to use it, the update cadence, and the history option (in the schema). The output fields are listed, and the schema explains the alternative result mode, making this complete for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100% with a detailed description of the optional 'days' parameter, including history length, Gold tier requirement, and fallback behavior. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but this is fine because the schema fully covers it, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool returns a 0-100 federal digital-demand score with specific metrics (z_score, momentum_vs_baseline_pct, recent-vs-baseline average daily visits), identifies the data source (GSA's Digital Analytics Program), and the scoring methodology. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, which are likely other data metrics.

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 lists when to call this tool: 'Call when the user asks about federal website traffic, .gov demand, government digital-service usage, or public-sector surge detection, or when timing staffing, capacity, or gov-facing go-to-market decisions.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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