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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-safe profile is established. The description adds value by explaining the score composites 11 place-intelligence layers joined on county_fips, listing what the response contains, and noting the update cadence. 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core deliverable, followed by usage triggers and update cadence. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description does well to specify return fields, data composition, and freshness. But the unresolved county-selection mechanism is a core functional gap that prevents an agent from reliably invoking the tool for a specific county, which keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional 'days' parameter is well-documented in the schema itself. However, the description claims the tool serves 'any US county' and mentions 'joined on county_fips,' yet no county/fips parameter exists in the schema and the description never explains how the target county is selected — a confusing gap for an agent.

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 and deliverable: 'Returns a 0-100 family-suitability score for any US county' and enumerates the output shape (composite_score, component_scores, drivers, coverage). This clearly separates it from the opaque sibling names (adw_p01, adw_p03, etc.) as the family-relocation intelligence tool.

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 'Call when...' triggers: family-suitability questions, county comparisons for relocation, or timing a move/home purchase/site selection. It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use exclusions, so it falls just 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.