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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the output structure (composite_score, component_scores, drivers, coverage) and the update cadence. It also explains the composite nature of the score and the joining key (county_fips), giving the agent useful context about the tool's behavior without contradicting the 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The first sentence is information-dense, the second provides use cases, and the third mentions update cadence. Every part earns its place and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields (composite_score, component_scores, drivers, coverage) and the score range. It also lists the six component layers and the join key. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state how to filter for specific counties, but given the tool has no required parameters, this is not a major omission.

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' already has a complete description in the input schema, covering both the behavior and the Gold tier requirement. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema description coverage.

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 business-expansion score for US counties, composed of six specific AlpineDataWorks layers. This precise verb+resource+output combination makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like other adw_p packages.

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 instructs when to call the tool: 'Call when the user asks about business expansion, site selection, or comparing counties for a new location, or when timing a market-entry, franchise, or store-siting decision.' This provides clear usage context but does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls 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.