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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds return-format context by stating it returns a national percentile rank and band. It also gives coverage (3,234 counties) and source (AHRQ), exceeding what annotations alone provide. No side effects or contradictions; the description complements the readOnly annotation well.

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 five concise sentences (or four with a fragment), each carrying distinct useful information: index definition, composite components, return type, input format, and coverage. No filler or redundant phrasing; every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only data lookup with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to pass input, and data coverage. It even provides the source 'AHRQ' for provenance. Nothing essential 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%, and the tool description duplicates the parameter format exactly ('5-digit county FIPS' examples). Since the schema already fully documents the `county` parameter, the description adds no new semantic value. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning the county-level SDOH disadvantage index (ADW-306) from AHRQ, with specific composite components (income, education, housing, food access, insurance, commute). This verb+resource definition distinguishes it from sibling county_* tools like county_cancer and county_mortality.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when county-level SDOH data is needed) by naming the index and its components. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tools are clearly domain-specific (cancer, mortality, water), so context is strong enough. Missing explicit 'use X instead' guidance prevents a 5.

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