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 fully covered and the description needn't repeat it. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data provenance (HMDA filings) and the US-only scope. It doesn't state latency, rate limits, or what happens when a location cannot be resolved, which is the main residual gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the returned metrics, followed by the use case. Every clause carries information; no filler or repeated annotation content.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, including the national percentile framing. For a read-only, single-parameter lookup with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs in order 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already specifies accepted forms (ZIP, city + state, county + state) and examples. The description's only addition is the 'US location' constraint, which is meaningful because the schema would otherwise accept any string or number. That is a modest but real contribution, so it sits at the high end of the baseline.

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 (get local housing-market context) and enumerates the concrete outputs: median home value with national percentile, median rent, appreciation, and HMDA mortgage activity. This makes it distinguishable in substance from assess_property_context or find_lenders_in_market, but it never names a sibling tool to route against.

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 a clear use case: 'answer whether a price or a market is typical,' which tells the agent the question type this tool serves. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for property-level versus market-level questions.

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