market_summary

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses 'Computed live over all operators in the state,' indicating real-time computation and scope. Does not mention destructive actions or authentication, but for a read-only summary, this is reasonable.

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?

Single sentence packs many details (9 metrics) efficiently, but could be slightly dense. Front-loads key verb 'summary.' No wasted words, earning a 4.

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 no output schema, description lists all included metrics (operator count, tails, avg/median fleet, largest operator, top-5 tail share, HHI, top operators) and states live computation. This is comprehensive for the tool's purpose.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema: 'state' and 'topN' are already clear from schema descriptions. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states it provides an analyst summary of a state's Part 135 charter market, listing specific metrics (operator count, total tails, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like compare_operators (which compares operators) and fleet_ranking (which ranks fleets).

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?

Description implies usage for summary of single state's market but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use.

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