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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data source (Public Crash Data file), scope (37,000 crashes/year, 2009-2025, three counties), and that it counts/breaks down data. No contradictions 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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then lists options, examples, and scope. Each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but well-structured and clear. Could be tightened slightly.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides extensive context: data source, time range, geographic scope, example questions, and parameter types. It does not specify the response format or behavior when combining filters, but overall is quite complete for its complexity.

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% with all 10 parameters described. The description reinforces schema by listing filters (alcohol, drug, pedestrian, etc.) and breakdown options (weather, light, etc.), but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Count reported traffic crashes') and the specific resource ('Delaware from the state's Public Crash Data file'). It lists multiple breakdown and filter dimensions, and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on crash statistics.

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 provides clear usage context by listing example questions the tool answers ('how many car crashes happen in Delaware each year', etc.). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, though siblings are distinct.

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