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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool returns an explicit unavailable error (not a silent failure or fabricated estimate), that the response includes official USDA eligibility and state application links, and why it is unavailable (outdated calculation rules). This is notably rich disclosure for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the single most important fact (the tool is unavailable) and the reason for it. Each remaining sentence adds distinct value: what the error contains and how the agent should behave.

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 parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is close to complete: it explains the failure mode, the payload of links, and the behavioral constraint. A minor gap is not pointing to whichever sibling should be called to actually obtain SNAP or state portal guidance.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Consistent with the stated behavior, it explicitly warns against supplying household financial information, which reinforces the no-input contract.

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 states a specific resource and function ('SNAP estimates') and immediately clarifies the current behavior: it returns an unavailable error rather than an estimate. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling feedam_get_state_snap_portal, which likely also surfaces state SNAP information, leaving a routing ambiguity.

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 explicit negative guidance ('Do not request household financial information for this tool or use a previous estimate to discourage applying'), which is actionable context an agent would otherwise get wrong. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use instead when an estimate or enrollment info is needed.

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