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

The read-only and closed-world annotations already indicate safety, and the description adds the daily refresh cadence, methodology (ACS/BLS/EPA normalization), and the distinction between level and momentum. It also notes the history option with a Gold-tier caveat through the schema, giving the agent a clear behavioral picture.

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 information-dense but has minor redundancy ('refreshed daily' and 'Updates: daily' convey the same fact). It is front-loaded with the primary function and then covers usage and differentiation, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 lists the return fields (cities, highest_context_city, lowest_context_city, top_drivers) and gives a clear use-case matrix. The optional history behavior is captured in the schema, so the tool is adequately contextually 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?

The single optional parameter 'days' is fully documented in the schema (maximum, minimum, behavior, tier requirement), so the description need not repeat it. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema, yielding the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('0-100 cross-metro livability levels comparison'), enumerating exact output fields (context_score, highest_context_city, lowest_context_city, top_drivers). It also distinguishes itself from sibling ADW-114 by noting it provides levels, not momentum, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call when the user asks how US metros compare on livability, rent, taxes, or job-market fundamentals, or when timing relocation...' and further clarifies the boundary by stating 'Levels, not momentum — that's ADW-114.' This gives both when-to-use and when-to-use-an-alternative guidance.

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