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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (coverage tier, pickup availability, minimum quantity, scheduling note), the routing logic (Albuquerque metro only), and a behavioral nuance: 'pickups are scheduled by route — no day-count window.' It also includes a conditional instruction for downstream action. This is exceptionally transparent for a check 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but it is well-structured: purpose, geographic scope, return list, and usage rule. It is front-loaded with the primary action. While it is somewhat verbose, every sentence contributes necessary context, and the critical instruction ('ALWAYS call this BEFORE...') is placed at the end but clearly emphasized.

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 fully explain what the tool returns, and it does: the coverage tier enum, pickup availability, minimum quantity, scheduling note, and human-readable message. It also provides the usage context and the prerequisite relationship to scheduling. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly 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?

The schema already documents the single parameter 'zip' with a pattern and description ('Five-digit US ZIP code'). The description repeats this information without adding new semantic detail (e.g., format constraints, examples, or special values). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Check'), a specific resource (NMLP book pickup coverage), and the input (five-digit US ZIP code). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling scheduling tool by positioning itself as a prerequisite, and it enumerates the output fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description explicitly says 'ALWAYS call this BEFORE nmlp_schedule_pickup' and instructs not to submit a pickup request when pickupAvailable is false. It also explains the geographic coverage tiers (metro vs. elsewhere) which implies when the tool is relevant. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-proceed guidance, with a direct reference to a sibling tool.

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