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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the semantic rule that configured sources are not 'covered' until eligible observations exist. That meaningfully changes how an agent interprets the output and goes beyond the annotations.

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 what is described and followed by the one interpretive caveat. Minor awkwardness in the phrasing of the first sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 shape need not be restated, and the description tells the agent which coverage dimensions to expect plus the key eligibility caveat. It is sufficient for a zero-argument read tool, with only the lack of usage context as a residual gap.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-baseline is 4 and there is no parameter syntax for the description to compensate for. No omission exists to penalize.

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 names a specific verb (describes) and resource (publishable sheep, goat, and cattle coverage, broken into market, species, date coverage, and freshness). This is clearly distinct from get_latest_prices and get_methodology, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: a coverage tool is naturally used to check data availability before pulling prices or reports, but the description never says when to call this versus the sibling tools or what prerequisite it satisfies. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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