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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: the tool costs $0.02 USDC per call and sources data from FRED and Census, which is beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The four short sentences include use case, data sources, audience, and pricing without redundancy. Minor extra detail (pricing) is justified for a paid tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not describe the return structure or format of the indicators. The term 'market tier' is ambiguous and not linked to parameters. While the tool is simple (two optional params), the description leaves gaps about how the data is returned and how parameters affect results.

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% and the description does not explain either parameter (region, structure_type). It mentions 'market tier' which does not map directly to any parameter, and it does not clarify defaults or interactions when parameters are omitted. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description fails to tie them to the indicators listed.

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 it provides live housing supply indicators (starts, permits, completions, absorption) from FRED and Census, with an explicit leading-indicator use case. This specificity distinguishes it from broader housing or market benchmark tools.

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 identifies a clear use case (leading indicator for housing prices 6-12 months ahead) and target audience (developers, lenders, investors, policy analysts). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_residential_market_benchmark or state when not to use it.

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