USDA Boxed Beef Cutout

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: publication cadence ('Published Thursdays'), weekly frequency, and the specific report code LM_XB459. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The enumeration of returned prices is somewhat long but informative, and the source/public-domain note is a minor but relevant addition. No wasted 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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, this description is complete: it states what data is returned, the geographic scope, publication frequency, and provenance. There is nothing essential an agent needs to know to select and invoke it correctly that is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the sections returned, which loosely maps to the all_sections parameter, but it does not materially clarify either parameter beyond what the schema already explains (format, default behavior, omission semantics).

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'National weekly boxed beef cutout and individual cut prices (LM_XB459),' then enumerates exact return content (primals, Choice/Select, ground beef, trimmings). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and clearly differentiates it from siblings like lmpr.lamb.carcass_cutout and lmpr.cattle.slaughter_prices.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool through its beef-specific focus and report ID, so an agent can infer it is the correct choice for beef cutout data. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools/conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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