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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries disclosure. It adds two meaningful behavioral facts: the call is free (0 credits) and querying a state without data yields an empty result. It does not discuss caching/staleness of the inventory or refresh behavior, leaving a small gap for a tool whose whole purpose is describing 'live' data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and what it returns, then the usage directive and cost. No redundant restatement of the title or 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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies the shape of the result (per-state venue counts plus hot-lead counts with the threshold), and it covers cost and empty-result behavior. That is sufficient for a zero-parameter inventory tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs, and it correctly implies no filtering argument exists.

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 (List) and resource (states with data), and quantifies what each entry contains (scored venue count plus hot-lead count defined as opening_score >= 80). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling new_openings by positioning itself as the inventory check that precedes it.

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?

Gives an explicit directive ("Call this FIRST"), names the sibling it should precede (new_openings), and supplies the reason (querying a state with no data returns nothing). When-to-use and the alternative routing are both covered.

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