california_tobacco

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds useful context that the data is simulated and extended, which matters for interpretation, but it does not disclose loading behavior, return shape, or any caching semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a single, waste-free sentence with the key resource name and qualifiers front-loaded. It is not overly verbose, though the noun-phrase structure leaves the action implicit and sacrifices some helpfulness for brevity.

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?

The output schema and fully documented parameter schema reduce the burden on the description, and readOnlyHint covers side-effect concerns. However, the description does not say what columns, years, or units the dataset contains, nor exactly how the 'extended' simulated version differs from california_prop99, which is central to selecting this data tool.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies a specific resource: the California Proposition 99 tobacco dataset, with the qualifiers 'simulated, extended'. Although it is a noun phrase rather than an action verb like 'Loads' or 'Returns', it clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling california_prop99 by signaling that the data is synthetic and expanded.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus california_prop99 or other dataset loaders. The qualifiers 'simulated, extended' imply it is meant for scenarios needing synthetic or expanded data, but no alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are stated.

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