CapCenter

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the response is links only, no PII is handled here, and legal disclosures remain in English even in Spanish mode. It doesn't say whether the links are static or session-specific, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and what it does not do. The final parenthetical about Spanish keywords is compact and earns its place, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 two-optional-param, enum-constrained, annotated tool with no output schema, the description covers the return type (links), the PII boundary, and language behaviour including the English-disclosure exception. Only the static-vs-personalized nature of the returned links is left unstated.

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% with both params fully described and enum-constrained, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning — the Spanish trigger vocabulary "consulta, cita" — while the topic-to-page mapping is already implied by the schema enums.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource — it "Returns links to book time with CapCenter" — and enumerates the three offerings (loan consultation, real estate agent, insurance quote), distinguishing it from the quote/estimate calculators among its siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route away from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It makes clear this is the booking path rather than an advice or quoting path, and adds a useful boundary: "Links only; personal details are entered by the person on capcenter.com," which tells the agent not to attempt collection or direct scheduling. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool is given.

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

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

Annotations only say read-only, idempotent, closed-world; the description adds the substance that matters: real CapCenter pricing, zero-closing-cost assumption with points shown, break-even months, total interest, a benefit horizon tied to years staying, a recommendation flag, and the explicit 'estimate, not a loan offer' disclaimer. It also discloses the Spanish-language behavior including that legal disclosures remain in English.

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?

Effectively one dense sentence plus a disclaimer and a language note; the output contents are front-loaded and every clause carries information. It is slightly run-on and could be split into a what-it-returns list for faster scanning.

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?

With 13 parameters, no output schema, and a complex financial computation, the description does the work of explaining what comes back: new P&I, payment change, cost to close, break-even, total interest, and estimated benefit. The estimate disclaimer and language caveat close the remaining gaps.

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 schema already explains all 13 parameters including the county slug format and the payment auto-derivation. The description adds only modest meaning, notably that years_staying drives the benefit horizon and that language=es switches the response language, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and a precise resource set: keeping the current mortgage versus a rate-and-term refi, cash-out refi, and home equity loan, all on CapCenter pricing. That clearly separates it from siblings like explain_loan_options or get_mortgage_quote, which don't produce a side-by-side break-even analysis.

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 makes the triggering scenario clear (an existing borrower weighing refinance/HELOC against staying put) and notes the tool will flag when keeping the current loan wins. It stops short of explicitly naming when to route to a sibling instead, but the context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: answers are published FAQ text verbatim with source URLs, and language=es adds a Spanish courtesy translation beside the English.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains reasonably tight despite enumerating several topics. It is appropriately sized for an informational tool, though the long topic list could be slightly compressed.

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 FAQ tool with no output schema, the description explains the return content (verbatim FAQ text with source URL) and translation behavior. It is largely complete, though it could better route agents away from sibling tools when appropriate.

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 both parameters are already well documented. The description repeats the topic categories and the Spanish translation behavior, adding little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb and resource: it answers questions about CapCenter's loan programs, eligibility, refinancing, home equity, and licensing. It is clearly an informational FAQ tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_todays_rates or compare_refinance_options.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed topics, so an agent can infer this is for general loan-program questions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling calculators, quote tools, or rate tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the 50% max DTI and 80% LTV methodology, that a live CapCenter quote with rate, APR, payment and required disclosure is returned, that it is not a pre-approval, and that only licensed states are answered. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs to set expectations.

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?

It is a single long sentence but front-loads the purpose and packs methodology, output, caveat and language trigger without filler. Readability suffers slightly from the run-on construction, keeping it just below top marks.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names what comes back (rate, APR, payment, required disclosure). Minor gaps remain: no guidance on what happens for an unsupported state, and the relationship to get_mortgage_quote is left for the agent to infer.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the credit enum bands and the county slug format. The description only references the parameter set collectively ('credit band and county') and adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('estimate the most home a person could finance') and immediately scopes it with the inputs used and the output produced (a real CapCenter quote for the estimated price). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_mortgage_quote, get_home_value_estimate and get_loan_limits because it is about affordability derived from income, debts and cash.

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?

Implies the use case (budgeting how much home someone can afford) and adds the key caveat 'An estimate, not a pre-approval', but never names an alternative tool or says when to pick this over get_mortgage_quote or get_loan_limits. The Spanish trigger ('language=es') is a useful usage cue but not a when/when-not rule.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the estimate is explicitly not an appraisal and carries an as-of date and disclaimer, three ordered next-step links are returned, Spanish responses keep legal disclosures verbatim in English, and mortgage_balance is never stored.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the opening clause, and each subsequent element (as-of date, disclaimer, next-step links, language, mortgage_balance) is load-bearing. It is a single heavily nested sentence, which makes it denser than it needs to be, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return payload: the three value bands, as-of date, disclaimer, and the ordered next-step links. Combined with the licensing constraint, language behavior, and optional mortgage_balance handling, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only error/not-found behavior is left implicit.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already explains address vs listing_url, the en/es enum, and the mortgage_balance rounding behavior. The description contributes modest extra meaning, chiefly the 'valor de la vivienda' Spanish phrasing and the address-or-URL choice, but nothing the schema does not already say.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: an automated home value estimate with low/median/high bands, for either a street address or a capcenter.com listing URL. It is clearly not the same thing as the affordability, savings, or rate siblings, but it never names or contrasts those tools explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than spelled out: coverage is limited to states where CapCenter is licensed, and inputs may be an address or a listing URL. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use framing against siblings such as get_affordability_estimate or search_homes_for_sale, so the agent must infer routing.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results carry official sources, Jumbo classification is explained, and Spanish output has a specific disclosure-handling rule (legal text stays English verbatim with a courtesy translation).

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?

Front-loaded with the core resource and scope in the first clause, and no sentence is filler. The heavy parenthetical stacking (FHFA, Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, HUD) makes it denser than necessary, slightly hurting readability.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the domain context an agent needs: what limits are returned, for which unit counts, for which geography, and in which language. With no output schema, it could say more about the return shape (e.g., per-unit-count conforming vs FHA figures), which is the one remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents state, county slug format, and the language enum with its disclosure caveat. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond restating that language=es yields Spanish and supplying the Spanish term 'límites de préstamo'.

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 names the exact resource (2026 conforming FHFA/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and FHA/HUD loan limits), the unit range (1–4 units), and the geographic scope (a county CapCenter serves). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_todays_rates, get_mortgage_quote, or get_affordability_estimate, and even defines the Jumbo threshold.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement ('in a county CapCenter serves') and the schema note that only licensed states are answered, but the description never says when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to call it. No sibling tool is named as an alternative for related questions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: inputs are rounded before pricing, ZERO closing costs, a required_disclosure accompanies any rate/APR/payment, disclosures remain in English with a Spanish courtesy translation, and an apply link is returned. This is richer than a 3, so it earns a 4.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the first sentence pins down what is returned and for which scenarios, followed by two short supporting facts. Slightly overloaded in one sentence, but nearly every clause carries information.

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?

With 11 parameters, 7 required, no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields (rate, APR, points, P&I, closing costs, required_disclosure, apply link) and noting rounding and language behavior. Conditional parameter requirements (balance/cashOut per purpose) are left entirely to the schema, a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 every parameter (down, balance, cashOut, language, occupancy, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the language=es example, which the schema also covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb and resource (real CapCenter conventional fixed-rate quotes for 30/20/15-year terms) plus the exact return contents: rate, APR, points, monthly P&I, zero closing costs, required_disclosure, apply link. That level of specificity separates it cleanly from siblings like get_todays_rates and compare_refinance_options.

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?

Gives clear qualifying conditions — a purchase, refinance, or cash-out scenario in a county CapCenter serves, in a state it is licensed in. It never explicitly says when to prefer compare_refinance_options or get_todays_rates instead, so there is no exclusion or alternative routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: no PII is transmitted and the person completes details on-site, which rules out side effects an agent might otherwise fear. It also discloses that Spanish affects labels only while legal disclosures remain English, a behavior not visible in 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then the action enum in prose, then the scoping caveat and language note. No filler and no repetition of the schema verbatim.

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 7-parameter, 100%-documented read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a link), the three action targets, the optional prefill, the no-PII boundary, and the language behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what language=es actually changes in the output (Spanish labels such as 'solicitar', 'siguiente paso', with English legal text retained). The prefill mentions (purpose, home value, balance, county) largely restate schema descriptions, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (returns a link) and resource (next-step deep link on capcenter.com), then enumerates the three action targets. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_mortgage_quote or get_todays_rates, which compute values rather than hand off to a hosted flow.

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?

Implies the usage context — this is a handoff/link generator rather than a calculator — and 'Links only; personal details are entered by the person on capcenter.com' signals when it applies. But it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as get_mortgage_quote or book_consultation, so the agent must infer routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: data provenance (capcenter.com), freshness (as-of dates), and the privacy scope of quotes (first name + last initial only).

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?

A single dense sentence with the substantive content (sources, figures, links, dates) front-loaded and the language trigger placed last. Slightly overloaded with parenthetical detail, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what data comes back, where it comes from, how fresh it is, and how the Spanish variant behaves.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description only restates the Spanish behavior and adds Spanish trigger vocabulary (opiniones, calificaciones), which is mildly useful but not new 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?

Names the exact resource (CapCenter's public ratings from Zillow, Google, BBB) plus the supporting content (source links, as-of dates, published client quotes). No sibling tool covers reviews, and the description makes that scope unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for reputation/social-proof questions, but the description never states when to call it or when another tool (e.g. get_mortgage_quote) is the better fit. No exclusions or ordering guidance are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: it names the underlying methodology ('Uses the site's own math'), specifies that output is an itemized comparison against typical lenders, and documents that Spanish responses come back with legal disclosures kept in English verbatim.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the enumerated savings components each carry information an agent cannot get from the schema. It runs as one dense block and the trailing 'Answers in Spanish with language=es (ahorros)' feels appended rather than integrated, but there is little outright waste.

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 9-parameter estimator with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting: it tells the agent exactly what the response will contain (itemized lender vs CapCenter closing costs, purchase credit cap of 0.5%, listing-fee differential and minimum, insurance statement). Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the goal enum, county slug format and language behavior. The description reinforces the county-scope constraint and the language=es behavior, but adds no syntax or conditional guidance beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('what a client saves with CapCenter'), then enumerates the four goals and the exact components returned: lender closing-cost comparison, Realty Purchase Credit, 1% Listing Fee, insurance savings. This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from get_affordability_estimate, get_home_value_estimate and compare_refinance_options without opening any schema.

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?

Usage context is implied by the goal list (buy, sell, sell-and-buy, refinance) and the 'county CapCenter serves' constraint, which mirrors the required parameters. However, it never routes the agent against siblings: there is no statement of when to prefer get_affordability_estimate or compare_refinance_options, nor any exclusion such as 'not for pre-qualification or rate quotes'.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful context — only licensed states answer, results include as-of time and source page, and legal disclosures travel with the data. It doesn't say what happens on an unlicensed state or a missing county, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and packed efficiently into one long sentence with a parenthetical clarifier. Slightly dense — the trailing Spanish aside could be trimmed — but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (rate, APR, points, closing costs, pricing scenario, as-of time, source page, disclosures), and annotations cover the safety semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 every parameter is already documented, including enums and the Spanish/language behavior. The description restates the program lineup and the language=es flag but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Today's published CapCenter mortgage rate tables for a county') and enumerates exactly what each row contains (rate, APR, points, zero closing costs) plus the programs covered. That level of specificity clearly separates it from siblings like get_mortgage_quote (personalized quote) or compare_refinance_options.

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 implies usage (look up published rate tables for a county, with program/purpose views) but never states when to choose this over get_mortgage_quote, compare_refinance_options, or explain_loan_options. The `purpose` purchase/refinance view is mentioned only indirectly via the schema, not as guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: licensed-state restriction, capcenter.com-only listings, MLS attribution requirements, quote and agent links, and Spanish response behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose and filters, followed by return details and language behavior. Every sentence contributes practical information, with no filler or repetition.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: it explains the search scope, available filters, returned listing facts, links, MLS attribution, and Spanish behavior. The schema already handles parameter-level constraints and required fields.

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 11 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description usefully restates the main filter categories and the 10-listing cap, but it does not add syntax or default details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 specific verb and resource: searching homes for sale on capcenter.com with location and property filters. It also clarifies the geographic scope (licensed states only) and the filter dimensions, so an agent can distinguish this from mortgage, rate, and valuation sibling tools without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: search listings in a city, county, or ZIP within a CapCenter-licensed state, filtered by price, beds, baths, and property type. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but none of the sibling tools overlap with this home-search operation.

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