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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the data is 'stored' (precomputed, not derived live), 'public' (no auth-gated content), and includes truth-lineage and sufficiency metadata that tells the agent how much to trust the numbers.

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 verb and resource, and the 'Informational only' caveat placed last where it reads as a qualifier. No filler, though the enumerated payload list is slightly dense.

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 must describe the return shape, and it does name the key fields (truth lineage, data sufficiency, eligibility). For a single-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, this is sufficient; only the exact response structure and any pagination/absence behavior remain unstated.

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 schema already documents region_id with an example ('pnw-olympics'), so the description carries no additional parameter burden. Baseline 3 applies; the description neither adds syntax nor omits anything needed.

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 ('Returns') and a precise resource ('stored public regional forecast accuracy'), and enumerates the payload components (truth lineage, data sufficiency, eligibility). It is clearly distinct from the conditions/objectives siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 phrase 'Informational only' gives a meaningful usage cue — the result is not an authoritative or actionable signal — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among get_objective_conditions, get_route_conditions, or search_objectives.

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