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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the data is 'live' and from a large comp set, but fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. The agent lacks critical safety information.

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 sentence of 18 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and a key fact (data size). Every element is meaningful, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and filter criteria. However, it does not indicate the return structure (e.g., single benchmark vs. list) or clarify behavior when property_type is empty. Given the low parameter count and lack of annotations, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by state and property type, but does not clarify allowed values, default meanings, or formatting (e.g., 'CT' as two-letter code). The default values ('CT' and empty string) are not explained, leaving ambiguity about behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve live cap rate and price/SF benchmarks, filtered by state and property type. The mention of '109,000+ comps' adds credibility and specificity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_market_summary by focusing on benchmarks rather than summary statistics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_market_summary or search_deals. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when this tool is appropriate over others.

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