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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: data source (USAspending), trailing-12-month aggregation, normalization basis, and update cadence. It does not disclose return envelope or potential caveats, but given the read-only annotation, it is appropriately transparent.

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 two information-dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core output, then gives use cases and update cadence. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output fields, use cases, data source, and update cadence. It does not explicitly describe the default snapshot return shape, but the schema covers that, and the description is otherwise complete.

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 single parameter 'days' is fully described in the schema, including its optional nature, history behavior, and tier requirement. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline 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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('0-100 federal dependency score per US county') with detailed output fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name or contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives explicit scenarios: 'which counties rely most on federal grants or contracts, shutdown or budget-cut exposure, or when timing site-selection, underwriting, or muni-credit decisions.' This is strong when-to-use guidance, but it lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, so it is not a full 5.

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