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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the place_id key format, the 2022 dataset vintage, and the fact that this is an aggregate federal statistic with zero PII.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the search action and the returned identifier before the downstream payoff. No 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by specifying the place_id format and what it unlocks. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination behavior for limit, a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so q and limit are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics (e.g., how partial names match, what limit controls), so the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameters applies.

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 (USDA Census of Agriculture) filtered by county/state name, and even names the return artifact (place_id). No sibling tool shares this resource, so an agent can route to it without ambiguity.

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: search by name to obtain a place_id that another tool consumes for farm-economy figures. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., crop_insurance_search), leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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