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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds context about the composite score being built from 9 layers, the output fields, and the update cadence, but it does not disclose details about data coverage, edge cases, or potential limitations such as missing counties.

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, front-loading the core purpose before usage guidance. Every sentence provides distinct value: output specification, when to use, and update frequency.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview: output fields, use cases, and update cadence. However, it does not clarify whether all U.S. counties are returned at once or the exact format of the response, and it leaves the 'days' parameter explanation entirely to the schema.

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 input schema with a detailed description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional semantics about the parameter.

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 public-investment-need score per U.S. county and lists output fields. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling adw_pXX tools, which may have similar scopes.

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 states when to call it: 'Call when the user asks where public investment, grants, or infrastructure spending is most needed...' This provides clear use-case guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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