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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations, such as data sources (NAHB, ULI, industry composite) and per-call pricing, but it does not disclose response shape, update cadence, or any other behavioral traits.

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 compact and front-loaded: metrics first, then audience, then sources and price. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or restatement of the tool name.

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 low-complexity, read-only benchmark lookup with two enum parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, metrics, target users, sources, and cost. The only minor omission — not describing market_tier in prose — is fully covered by the input schema enum, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 needed to compensate. It mentions 'by product type,' which maps to the required product_type parameter, but it completely omits market_tier and gives no meaning to either parameter's enum values. The schema enums do the heavy lifting; the description adds little parameter-level understanding.

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 names a specific resource — development pro forma benchmarks — and enumerates the exact metrics returned (yield on cost, profit-on-cost, construction-to-perm spread, return hurdles). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cap_rate_benchmark and get_construction_cost_benchmark by its metric set and real-estate development focus.

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?

The description gives explicit context for when to use the tool: developers underwriting new projects and lenders sizing construction loans. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use-case framing is clear enough to guide selection.

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