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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: the 4-week truncation limit, that the remainder is paid, and that each row carries week, as_of and status. It stops short of stating pagination or ordering guarantees, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, zero filler: scope first, series enumeration second, paid-alternative routing last. The most decision-relevant constraint (4 weeks, free) is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing row shape (week, as_of, status). Combined with the enum explanation and the paid/free boundary, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to know when not to.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already lists the five values, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining what each value actually measures (e.g. 'permits-weekly (building permits by city)', 'labor-ranges (labor and financing conditions)'), letting an agent pick the right series without external knowledge.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (latest 4 weeks of a weekly Rio Grande Valley series) and enumerates each available series with a parenthetical gloss of what it measures. An agent can distinguish this from get_sample and list_endpoints without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes the tool to the free window ('latest 4 weeks ... for free') and routes the agent elsewhere for anything older: 'The full history is a paid endpoint; how_to_pay with series-<name> gives its URL and price.' That is a clear when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else split naming the sibling tool.

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