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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results degrade per-section when source data is unavailable and that the call costs $3.00 USDC. It does not go into output format, authentication, or rate limits, but the added degradation detail is meaningful.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the purpose, then cover degradation behavior, inputs, and cost with no filler. Every sentence adds decision-relevant 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?

For a read-only composite tool with five inputs and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation details: use case, required/optional inputs, degradation, and cost. It is slightly thin on what the returned composite looks like and how to format 'location', but it is generally complete enough to call correctly.

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 only parameter information in the description is required/optional status, which duplicates the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain what values 'location'/'state' should take and how asset_class, property_type, and market_tier interact, but it does not.

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?

Description states a specific use case ('underwriting a CRE acquisition') and a specific deliverable: one signed composite spanning cap rates, CRE debt, operating costs, property tax, debt-stress, and climate risk. This clearly differentiates it from the many single-benchmark siblings such as get_cap_rate_benchmark or get_cre_debt_benchmark by emphasizing the composite nature.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use condition and describes what the returned composite contains, so an agent can recognize the appropriate context. It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, which prevents a 5.

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