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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what statistics are included, but it does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the existing annotation. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values.

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, information-dense sentence with no fluff; every listed item adds useful detail. It is somewhat dense and could be structured with separators for readability, but it remains appropriately sized for the range of statistics covered.

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 zero-parameter, read-only statistics tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states the market, the scope, and the specific breakdowns included, and there is no ambiguity about what the tool returns or how to invoke it.

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 there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not applicable and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 resource as summary statistics for the New York licensed cannabis market and enumerates the exact dimensions included. It lacks an explicit action verb, relying on the tool name and title, but the intended purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the individual entity 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 implies this is the tool for market-level aggregate statistics, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus the sibling tools or when not to use it. It provides clear context about the content, but no alternative guidance or exclusions.

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