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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the kinds of counts, time-bounded 90-day metrics, and category breakdowns the tool returns, making the behavior more predictable.

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 a single well-structured sentence with a leading summary phrase followed by a colon-delimited list of specific statistics. Every listed item adds value, and there is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 that the tool has no parameters, annotations mark it read-only, and an output schema is present, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells an agent exactly what aggregate categories to expect, so no critical invocation details are 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this is appropriately handled; the schema is empty and the description focuses on the returned statistics instead.

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 a specific resource: summary statistics for the New York licensed cannabis market. It enumerates the exact aggregates returned, such as dispensary totals, license counts, top cities, and 90-day open/close counts, which differentiates it from the sibling entity-level get/search 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?

The description establishes clear context for use: it is the market-level statistics tool, distinct from get_brand, get_dispensary, get_review, and the search variants. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and no prerequisites are needed.

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