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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, non-destructive profile, and the description adds operational context beyond them: 'public domain, no auth', the upstream USDA AMS source, and the concrete metadata fields returned. It stops short of disclosing ordering or pagination, but those gaps are minor given the annotations and output schema.

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?

Four sentences are front-loaded with the listing action and scope, followed by output contents, provenance, and the routing note. Every sentence contributes usable information, with no filler or redundant boilerplate.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, robust annotations, an output schema, and an explicit pointer to the commodity-filter sibling, the description covers everything needed for a correct call. Auth status, source, commodity scope, and returned metadata are all present, so there is no material missing context.

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 days parameter is fully documented in the schema with constraints, a default of 7, and usage examples, so the description need not repeat it. The phrase 'recently published' aligns with that parameter but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema; the baseline 3 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?

The description opens with a specific action, 'List recently published... reports', enumerates the commodity scope, and states the returned metadata fields. It also explicitly contrasts with usdamars.reports.search, so an agent can distinguish this list tool from its sibling without inspecting schemas.

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?

It names the key alternative explicitly: 'Use usdamars.reports.search to filter by commodity,' which tells the agent where to route commodity-filtered requests. The phrase 'recently published' supplies the applicable context for choosing this tool over that one.

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