Get an ALW county summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it returns aggregate counts plus the 'five largest' records—useful behavioral context about result scope. However, it doesn't disclose response size, ordering, or what happens if a county has unmatched names.

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 enumerates exactly what's returned with zero filler. Efficiently front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words.

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?

This is a read-only, single-parameter aggregate tool with strong annotations. The description covers the return contents and the county scoping. Minor gap: no mention of behavior for unknown/misspelled counties or outcome when a county has fewer than five providers, but given full annotations and 100% schema coverage, this is near-complete.

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% (the county param is fully documented, including the 'with or without County' syntax nuance). The description implies the county filters results but adds no format/validation details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.

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 states the verb+resource+scope: 'Return participating provider-record count, licensed capacity, median record capacity, and the five largest provider records for one California ALW county.' This is specific and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_program_summary (program-scoped) and list_counties (county listing).

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 implies when to use this tool—when wanting county-level ALW provider aggregates—but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not scenarios. The 'one California ALW county' phrasing gives clear scoping context. Slight room to name alternatives like get_program_summary as the cross-county alternative.

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