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

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool is an 'Unofficial, independent Actor' and states the cost ('$0.05/call, x402 (USDC on base)'), which is useful for the agent. It does not detail rate limits or response behavior, but the added cost/affiliation transparency earns a solid 4.

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 compact: one sentence for core purpose, one sentence for disclaimers and pricing. Every clause adds information, with no filler or repetition. The most important action ('Rank') appears first, so it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 scoring tool with 5 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description explains the essential purpose and provides pricing/affiliation context. It does not fully explain what the ranking output looks like or how it differentiates from the sibling scorer, but the schema and annotations cover most of the necessary context. A 3 would undervalue the explicit cost and independence disclosure, so 4 is fitting.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, including clear explanations for each parameter (e.g., ageWeights with non-overlapping bands, targetLegalCodes with 10-digit codes). The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'age composition', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Rank territories') with a specific resource ('official one-person-household age composition'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the very similar sibling tool 'mois-neighborhood-age-demand-scorer', so it stops short of a 5.

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 use when ranking territories by solo-household age composition, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its sibling 'mois-neighborhood-age-demand-scorer' or any other alternative. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred context.

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