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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description goes well beyond them: no API key required, data provenance (Magpie calculations over stored USDA MARS prices, not official USDA figures), and the omission rule when either side lacks a stored price. The provenance caveat is material for an agent reporting these numbers as facts.

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?

Definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by routing, then provenance and edge-case behavior. Dense but every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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 must describe return content and does so by enumerating each spread and its units. Combined with the omission rule and provenance note, an agent can call and correctly interpret this tool without further 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the default IL and its dual application. The description restates that geography applies to both sides of each spread, which reinforces interpretation but adds little the schema does not already say, so the baseline 3 fits.

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?

Names a specific derived resource and enumerates its three outputs (corn-to-nitrogen cost per product and per pound of N, soybean-to-corn ratio, feeder-to-fed spread), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also explicitly separates itself from the raw quote tools, which is the main confusion risk among these siblings.

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?

States the use case ('planting and feeding economics') and names the exact alternative tools (get_grain_price, get_fertilizer_price, get_livestock_price) with the condition that selects them (you want the quotes behind a spread). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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