usda_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral context such as authentication, rate limits, response size, or pagination. It only restates scope, so while it does not contradict the annotations, it adds minimal behavioral value beyond them.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides useful commodity examples. No redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 3-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequate but has gaps. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value format, units, default year, or what the state parameter expects (e.g., code vs. name). It is functional but incomplete for an agent needing to interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%: each parameter (commodity, year, state) already has a description. The tool description adds 'any commodity' and example values (CORN, WHEAT, SOYBEANS, CATTLE, MILK), which is some extra context but not substantial. Since the schema carries the parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get prices received by farmers for agricultural commodities.' It is specific and distinguishes the tool from broad USDA datasets, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools usda_crop_data, usda_livestock, or usda_ag_query, so it lacks overt sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only broadens scope with 'Works for any commodity' but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer a sibling tool. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name.

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