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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by detailing the output structure and noting updates occur on source cadence. It also indirectly indicates this is a snapshot tool unless the optional days parameter is used, which is helpful context.

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, each with a distinct role: (1) output definition, (2) usage scenarios, (3) update cadence. It is dense without being verbose, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, what fields are returned, and update frequency. It could elaborate on the meaning of 'coverage' or 'ranked drivers', but these are reasonably self-explanatory.

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% (the only parameter 'days' is fully described). The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 county move-suitability composite with specific output fields (composite_score, component_scores, ranked drivers, coverage). This specific verb+resource+output combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, and the title 'Move Mode Workflow Package' reinforces its niche.

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 says 'Call when' and lists concrete use cases: where to move, comparing counties/metros, building relocation shortlists, timing moves/transfers/remote-work decisions. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the contexts are clear enough to guide an agent.

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