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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read-only operation. It adds useful context beyond annotations with 'Updates: on source cadence' and the parameter description noting that history requires Gold tier. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core output, followed by clear usage triggers and update cadence. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing core output fields: 'composite_score, per-layer component_scores, ranked drivers, and coverage.' It also mentions the county_fips join key and the 8-layer composition, providing enough context for correct selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter 'days', with a clear description that includes tier behavior and fallback to current snapshot. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but this is acceptable because the schema already carries the burden.

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 it 'Returns a 0-100 county underwriting-risk composite' with specific layers and output fields like composite_score and per-layer component_scores. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and the insurance/underwriting focus makes it distinguishable from the numerous sibling adw tools.

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 provides explicit call conditions: 'Call when the user asks about underwriting risk, insurance exposure, or a county's hazard and property risk profile' and lists workflows like 'rate filings, quote triage, or territory expansion.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named 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.