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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the counts are separate and never summed, and only same-node potential bridge pairs are included.

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 focused sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence explains output semantics, and the second provides usage guidance, with the 'ONE jurisdiction' constraint front-loaded.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented, output schema exists, and annotations cover safety and scope. The description supplies the market-picture purpose and key output constraints, making the tool sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, and the schema fully explains the code parameter: ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, case-insensitive, with list_nodes providing the valid codes. The description only reinforces that the tool targets one jurisdiction, adding no necessary parameter information beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (jurisdiction market picture) and precisely states what the tool returns: separate maker and retailer counts that are never summed, plus same-node bridge pairs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as find_makers and find_retailers.

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?

The description gives an explicit use case: 'use this first for "what does the market look like in X"' and scopes the tool to a single jurisdiction. It does name the trigger context well, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when to prefer them.

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