Get California ALW program summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile for a data-retrieval tool. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by noting it returns sources, dates, license, and interpretation cautions—ethical transparency about data provenance. It doesn't describe pagination or return format, but with no output schema and zero params, the description carries most of the burden and does so reasonably.

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 carefully constructed sentence that front-loads the core purpose (statewide summary of the ALW program) and then enumerates all returned data elements. Zero wasted words; every term in the sentence adds information.

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 has zero parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects—making it simple. The description enumerates all nine data categories returned, and notes important caveats around sources, dates, license, and interpretation cautions. The main gap is not mentioning any return format or whether the summary is a single object or list, but for a zero-param summary tool this is a minor omission. Could also clarify nothing about methodology, though get_methodology_and_citation exists as a sibling for that.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no params to document). With no parameters, the baseline per the rubric is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter info. The description's field enumeration effectively substitutes for parameter documentation since the tool takes no inputs.

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 specifies the exact resource (California ALW program) and enumerates the exact data dimensions returned: statewide enrollment, waitlist, provider-record count, county coverage, licensed PEU capacity, sources, dates, license, and interpretation cautions. This is a very specific verb+resource with a clear list of what the summary contains, distinguishing it from get_county_summary which presumably covers a single county.

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 this is the statewide-level summary tool, contrasting implicitly with get_county_summary (county-level) in the sibling list. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs get_county_summary or list_counties. The field list mentioning 'county coverage' and 'statewide' signals scope, but there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion note.

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