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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful context about update cadence and output composition, but it does not disclose the ambiguity around county selection or other limitations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences: the first packs scope, composition, and return fields; the second lists concrete use cases; the third states update cadence. No filler or 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?

The description includes return fields and use cases but critically fails to explain how the county is selected. With no output schema and only an optional days parameter, an agent cannot confidently invoke this tool for a specific county, which is a major completeness gap.

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 only schema parameter, days, is fully described in the schema itself, so the description need not repeat it. However, the description implies a county selection concept not present in the schema, which is misleading and creates an invocation ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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?

Clearly states it returns a 0-100 school quality score for 3,222 US counties, including the composite measures and return fields. This is specific and distinguishes the tool from generic data lookups, though it raises a question about how county selection occurs.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: school quality questions, district strength, education-driven demand, family relocation, and residential/corporate site selection. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance and alternatives, and it does not explain how the county is specified given only an optional days parameter.

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