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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns 'real (aged) sample rows' rather than live data, and that it is free. This transparently indicates a read-only, preview-only behavior without side effects. It does not mention any output format or limitations, but given the zero-parameter read-only nature, this is sufficient.

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, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the tool's value and content; the second gives a direct call-to-action. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, why it exists, and when to call it. It lacks explicit mention of output format or authentication, but those are likely unnecessary for a free preview. It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

There are no parameters (schema is empty), so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, compensating for the lack of parameter documentation. It doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist.

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 clearly states it is a preview of the WARN feed, listing specific contents (coverage, per-state counts, freshness, sample rows) and the context (official state sources, normalized schema). It distinguishes itself from the paid feed and implicitly from siblings like warn_feed_current by positioning itself as the free evaluation tool.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this to see exactly what the paid feed returns before paying', which tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative (e.g., warn_feed_current) for full data access. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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