neighborhood_local_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sampling methodology, LocalRoots scoring, aggregation into a Local Index, and the emphasis on per-category breakdown. However, it does not address potential external API calls, rate limits, or exact interpretation of the output score scale.

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 3 sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and includes a purposeful explanation of why per-category stats matter. It is concise without unnecessary filler, though the final sentence is more explanatory than operational.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of the tool's purpose, methodology, and use case, but it leaves gaps such as the default values for radius_km and sample_size, the expected output format details, and potential edge cases. It is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the default categories list, which is helpful, but it does not explain the semantics of radius_km, sample_size, or how the neighborhood parameter is used. This leaves users guessing about important parameter behavior.

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 action ('Score a neighborhood'), the subject ('independent-business density'), and the output ('single Local Index plus per-category stats'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on neighborhood-level aggregation, not individual business scoring or farm discovery.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'when a user asks how local is X neighborhood or wants to compare two areas,' which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases or alternative sibling tools, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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