calculate_market_size

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'based on available market data' but doesn't disclose whether data is locally available, how projections are made, or if the operation is read-only. It also lacks details on limitations or assumptions, leaving uncertainty about the tool's internal behavior.

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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It avoids fluff while including essential scope ('for a state') and a qualifier ('potential') that adds nuance without excess.

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?

The tool is simple (1 required param, no output schema), but the description leaves uncertainty about output format and data sources. It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks contextual depth, such as whether it returns a numeric value, a report, or requires specific state codes.

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 fully documents the 'state' parameter, and the description's phrase 'for a state' aligns with it. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function—calculating market size and revenue projections for a state—with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like calculate_fees or compare_jurisdictions, which deal with different aspects of regulatory analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to sibling tools. It does not state when to choose this over calculate_fees or get_license_types, leaving the agent without decision support.

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