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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — 'no API key,' default and max week counts, oldest-first ordering, stage variability by commodity, and weekly refresh cadence. It stops short of describing error or empty-result behavior, so not a 5.

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 sentences plus a coverage note, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. Slightly dense with em-dash clauses but every phrase (stages list, default/max, coverage scope) carries decision-relevant information.

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 compensates by explaining return shape (oldest-first weeks, stage variability) and coverage limits. Minor gaps remain around what happens for out-of-season or unsupported state requests, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the ordering of returned weeks (oldest first), which commodities/states are actually supported for coverage, and that the stage set varies. It reinforces `weeks` semantics rather than merely repeating them.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Week-by-week NASS crop progress'), enumerates what each data point contains (share at each growth stage), and states the source. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_crop_progress by the explicit weekly-history framing.

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 gives a positive use case ('track season pace or compare against earlier weeks') and an explicit exclusion routing to the alternative: 'use get_crop_progress instead when only the latest week matters.' That is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure the rubric rewards.

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