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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. Description adds that results are benchmarks with 'value ranges, scenarios, quality tiers', indicating estimates rather than exact figures. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main function, then usage context, then input. No redundant or generic filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values don't need description. Annotations cover safety. Description adequately covers purpose, when to use, and input. Could mention pagination/async behavior but these are standard tool parameters not disruptive to usage.

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 coverage is 75% with descriptions for commodity and country. Description reiterates 'Input: a commodity, with an optional country' but adds no new meaning beyond schema. Limit and async are not explained in description, though their schema min/max and async description provide some guidance.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Return production cost benchmarks ... and agronomic yields ... for a commodity.' Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ftg_production_methods (methods vs economics) and ftg_opportunity_scout.

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 states when to use: 'an agent sizes the economics of producing a commodity.' Provides clear context but does not name alternatives or exclusions. Sufficient for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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