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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable context about refresh cadence ('refreshed at each source's cadence') and output structure ('composite_score, component_scores, drivers, and coverage'), enriching the agent's understanding beyond 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 succinct sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives clear usage triggers, and the third notes update frequency. No fluff or repetition.

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 lists return fields and composite nature, it fails to explain how the target county is specified — the input schema contains no county_fips parameter. It also omits interpretation of the 0-100 scale and 'drivers'/'coverage' fields, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 only parameter (days) is fully documented in the schema with range, optionality, and Gold tier requirement (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 health-and-safety risk profile for a US county'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling single-layer tools (e.g., air_quality_risk, county_cancer) by clarifying it is a 'composite of 7 AlpineDataWorks V2 place-intelligence layers'.

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 provides explicit 'Call when...' scenarios covering location risk, hazards, community health, and business decisions like site selection and underwriting. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative tools, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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