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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful context such as the composite score structure, components, per-layer drivers, and update cadence. It does not cover rate limits or authorization, but these are less critical given the read-only hint.

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: first delivers core function and output, second provides clear use cases, third gives update cadence. No fluff, information is dense and well-organized.

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?

While the description explains outputs and use cases, it does not clarify how the tool receives or determines the county context given there is no county parameter in the schema. This ambiguity could lead an agent to call it incorrectly or misunderstand the returned scope. A explicit statement about returning all counties or using a location context is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the sole 'days' parameter, so the schema already explains parameters fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, resulting in baseline score.

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 county healthcare planning score, a composite of 6 specific layers, and lists the output components. The description is specific and distinguishes it from generic sibling tools by focusing on healthcare planning.

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 'Call when' guidance covering healthcare demand, provider capacity, underserved counties, health risk, and specific decisions like clinic site selection and network expansion. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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