usda_crop_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond basic data type, which is adequate but minimal.

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 concise with two short sentences that front-load the purpose and list key commodities. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple data retrieval tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and commodity scope. It lacks mention of optional parameters like state and year, but those are in the schema.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description adds a commodity (SORGHUM) not listed in the parameter description, which can be confusing. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, but the inconsistency prevents a higher score.

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 tool retrieves crop production data with specific metrics like area planted, harvested, production, and yield, and lists commodities. However, it does not differentiate from sibling USDA tools (e.g., usda_ag_query, usda_livestock) explicitly, and 'crop production data' might be slightly ambiguous given the category parameter includes other metrics.

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 versus other USDA tools or alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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