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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description adds value by disclosing no API key is needed, that it mirrors the REST /v1/status summary plus per-dataset state lists, and that the underlying data is a single 2026 survey year. The data-staleness disclosure is genuinely useful context not available in annotations; a minor gap is no note on response size or cost, though for a no-param status call that is negligible.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload contents, then the when-to-use guidance, then the caveat. Four clauses with minimal waste, though the enumeration of return fields is slightly dense and could be trimmed.

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 burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly: counts, year ranges, totals, and state lists. Combined with the data-freshness caveat and no-param confirmation, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies; the description correctly closes with 'It takes no parameters', removing any doubt. No further parameter meaning is possible here.

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 and resource ('Lists what the Farmland API actually holds') and then enumerates the exact payload: row counts, year range per dataset, distinct state/county totals, and per-dataset state codes. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling getters, which retrieve data rows rather than coverage metadata.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before get_land_values or get_cash_rents to confirm a state or year is covered ... or to size a query', naming both siblings and the conditions that select them. It also warns that stored data is currently a single survey year, 2026, which directly prevents wasted calls.

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