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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered (and 'Read-only' in the text is mostly redundant). The description earns credit for adding genuine context the annotations do not: the data source and vintage (2025 HMDA loan-level data), the retrieval date, and the 'filing record, not a recommendation' caveat.

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, then the returned fields, then the caveat. Two sentences with almost no waste, though the field enumeration makes the first sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and the data provenance, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only the sibling differentiation against investor_lenders_aggregate 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% – both parameters (state enum list and limit range) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond confirming the state scoping, 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 resource (top investment-property lenders) with a clear scope (one of 15 covered states) and enumerates the returned fields (lender name, LEI, loan count, volume, average loan, purchase share, state totals, retrieval date). The 'by state' scoping implicitly separates it from the investor_lenders_aggregate sibling, but it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Context is implied – the state-scoped dataset signals when this is the right tool – but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no pointed reference to investor_lenders_aggregate for national or aggregate views. The agent must infer the routing from the name and scope alone.

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