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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so that burden is lifted. The description still adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 2019–2025 coverage window, the self-hosted/canonical nature of the data, and the evidence hash and attribution returned. It does not mention rate limits or result-ordering behavior, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the purpose before the usage examples and the scope caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 takes on return-value disclosure and does so reasonably (canonical crop/class/metric combinations, units, coverage, pagination, evidence hash, attribution). Combined with the scope exclusion and resolver role, an agent has what it needs; only the ordering/shape of paged results is left implicit.

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 (limit, query, offset, response_format) with types, ranges, defaults, and the enum. The description adds only an implicit hint of query content via the 'durum wheat yield' example, which is the correct baseline-3 profile when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and a precisely scoped resource (self-hosted official USDA NASS Crop Production Annual Summary series). It explicitly distinguishes its role from siblings by framing itself as the series resolver used before history/trend calls, so an agent can separate it from usda_nass_crop_history and usda_nass_crop_trend.

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?

Gives concrete triggering questions ('what NASS crop series are hosted?', 'find durum wheat yield') and an explicit alternative workflow ('resolve a series before history/trend calls'). It also states when NOT to use it via a scope exclusion: 'final national annual summaries, not the full Quick Stats catalog.'

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