usda_ag_query

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the hard 50,000-record maximum and a recommendation to pre-count for large queries. No contradictions with annotations. Slightly more detail (e.g., pagination or error behavior) would be useful, but the limit is a key constraint.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose, a critical limit, and usage guidance are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every clause contributes.

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?

Given the schema fully documents parameters and readOnlyHint is set, the description covers the essential purpose, a key limit, and a pre-query strategy. It doesn't describe the return format or fields, but for a query tool this is acceptable since the schema and annotations carry most context.

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% since all 8 parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that parameters are combinable as filters ('any combination of filters'), which is not stated in the schema. This helps the agent understand parameter interactions.

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?

Description states it performs a 'Custom query to USDA NASS QuickStats' with 'any combination of filters.' This is a specific verb (query), resource (USDA NASS QuickStats), and scope (arbitrary filters), which clearly distinguishes it from specialized USDA siblings like usda_prices, usda_crop_data, and usda_livestock.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use usda_ag_count first for large queries' and discloses the 50,000-record limit. This tells the agent when to use a preliminary count tool, but it doesn't contrast with other USDA query tools that might be more appropriate for specific data types.

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