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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is return content, and it delivers: it enumerates each dataset and the fact that metrics are benchmarked against the US. It stops short of noting caveats such as whether the July 2025 figures are projections or that the county table only appears with a positive limit.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the state scope and then walks the data categories in a stable order. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the comma-list structure makes it harder to scan than a short bulleted breakdown would be.

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 telling the agent what comes back, and it covers every section of the payload including the county table variants. Minor omissions remain: how county, limit, and county_sort interact, and the Connecticut county restriction is only visible in the schema.

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 all five parameters are already documented, and the description only restates the county_sort options (largest / fastest-growing / thinnest nursing supply) at a high level. It adds no syntax guidance for state codes, county names, limit, or offset beyond the schema, so 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 is a detailed inventory of the resource: Census 75+/85+ population, CMS nursing beds, CDC assisted living beds, CON status, HUD Section 232 loans, and a county table. An agent can tell this is a per-state profile rather than a comparison, implicitly distinguishing it from rank_states. The verb is implied rather than stated ("One state's ... picture"), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Scope is implied: "One state's" signals a single-state lookup as opposed to a multi-state ranking, and "or one county by name" signals the county drill-down. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., vs absorption_calc or rank_states).

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