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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is free, uses the same v2.0 algorithm as paid endpoints, and that providing an address triggers a hint about the paid endpoint. It lacks explicit read-only confirmation or rate-limit details, but the context of 'Get' and 'Returns' implies a safe read operation.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and structured into three sentences. The first sentence is comprehensive but a bit list-heavy, and the phrase 'Free tier. No payment required.' is slightly redundant. Overall, it remains efficient and free of fluff.

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 description provides a thorough enumeration of the returned data components, contextualizes the free vs. paid tiers, and mentions the address hint. Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values; it covers usage context, constraints, and feature differentiation adequately.

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?

The input schema describes the 'address' parameter as optional, noting it includes a hint about the paid endpoint. The description reinforces this by mentioning per-address alternatives. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 tool retrieves an aggregate wash-report dataset, enumerating specific components such as 30-day active buyers, wash percentages, and case studies. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'aggregate wash-report dataset' precisely defines the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools focused on categories, services, trends, and search.

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 explicitly states the free tier is for aggregate data and directs users to the paid per-address endpoint when real-time per-address analysis is needed. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative, including cost and protocol details.

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