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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational context beyond annotations: provenance (CBRE and JLL quarterly surveys), update cadence, and a per-call cost of $0.02 USDC. It does not describe response shape, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 concise, purposeful sentences: the first front-loads the core function, the second gives source and cadence, and the third adds audience, use case, and cost. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 three-parameter read-only benchmark lookup, the description covers the essential decision factors: what is measured, the source, the cost, and typical use cases. It is not fully complete because it omits the metric's unit/format and doesn't distinguish itself from adjacent CRE benchmark tools, but the lack of an output schema lowers the expectation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps to the three filtering dimensions from the schema—asset class, market tier, and geography—which helps align intent with parameters. However, it does not define the values, defaults, or required-optional semantics beyond what the enum names already imply.

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 the resource precisely: commercial real estate cap rate benchmarks segmented by asset class, market tier, and geography. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides' and doesn't contrast with adjacent siblings such as get_cre_debt_benchmark, so it stops short of 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?

Provides clear usage context by naming the intended audience (CRE acquisition teams, asset managers, real estate CFOs) and the use cases (property pricing, portfolio valuation). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or which alternative to prefer, so it is strong but not maximal.

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