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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a normalization detail ('plus per-100') and a legal disclaimer, which are genuinely beyond the structured fields, but says nothing about how the comparison is computed or ordered.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key constraint (up to 10) front-loaded and no padding. It is grammatically fragmentary, which slightly hurts readability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with four parameters and two of them (lang, detail) undocumented in both schema and description, an agent cannot fully understand the tool's call surface.

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 only 50%: places and practice are documented in the schema, while lang and detail are documented nowhere. The description restates the 'up to 10' cap and 'states or counties' examples that the schema already provides, so it does not compensate for the undocumented language and detail parameters.

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 states a specific operation — putting the same practice-area figures for up to 10 states/counties side by side — which distinguishes it from single-market tools like market_profile. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so a reader has to infer that rank_markets orders rather than juxtaposes.

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 only hint of usage is the phrase 'side by side to compare' embedded in the purpose statement. There is no statement of when to prefer this over market_profile, rank_markets, or demand_trend, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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