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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the required free MARS API key and the exact cost model: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana, or Arc, with failed calls not charged. It also notes data provenance ('straight from USDA'), which is valuable behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to call.

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?

Front-loads the what and how, then appends auth and pricing details. Every sentence carries useful information, though the pricing/payment sentence is dense. Appropriately sized overall for a tool with two modes and a non-trivial cost model.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers both operational modes, auth requirements, cost, and provenance. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description echoes the `q` (search by title) and `slug` (latest rows) semantics but adds little beyond that—it does not explain `limit` or `section` behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 (search/retrieve) and resource (USDA AMS Market News reports), naming the official MyMarketNews API and the commodity domains (livestock, grain, dairy, fruit/vegetable). It clearly separates the two modes—catalogue search by title versus latest rows by slug—which distinguishes it from the many generic news-search siblings.

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?

Explicitly describes the two usage modes: use `q` to search the catalogue by title, or pass `slug` to get the latest published rows. This gives clear context for when each mode applies, but it does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a different USDA or news tool).

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