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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the output is a 'preview' and is 'masked', with business identities and contact values hidden — a privacy trait the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing what the preview actually contains or any limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the masking constraint. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to adequate, and the masking note is helpful. But the product_id format is undocumented and the description does not clarify what a 'preview' returns or how it differs from get_coverage, leaving a real gap an agent must guess around.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required product_id, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It names only two of the four prefixes the pattern allows ('city-trade', 'state-trade') and omits 'state' and 'mega-pack', leaving the agent to reverse-engineer the format from the regex.

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 (return) and resource (masked availability preview of a dataset), and the scope ('city/trade or state/trade') narrows it meaningfully. It distinguishes itself reasonably from list_* and search_datasets siblings, but never contrasts directly with get_coverage or get_dataset_price, which could also sound like dataset-inspection tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of get_coverage, get_dataset_price, or search_datasets. The reader can infer it is a lightweight inspection step before purchase, but the description offers no explicit condition or exclusion.

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