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 annotations by naming data sources and a per-call price of $0.02 USDC, but it does not disclose response format, defaults, or any limitations.

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: the first sentence states the core metrics, followed by sources, audience, and cost. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of useful information, though it could be tightened by merging audience and cost lines.

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 read-only benchmark tool with enum-restricted parameters, the description covers core output themes, sources, audience, and cost. However, it does not describe the expected return shape, the meaning of market_tier, or any caveats about how the metrics are aggregated, leaving modest but real gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 by explaining parameters, but it only mentions 'property type' generically. The market_tier parameter is entirely absent from the description, leaving an agent without additional meaning beyond the raw enum values in the schema.

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 identifies the resource (property operating benchmarks) and the specific metrics returned (OpEx per SF, NOI margins, occupancy rates). It distinguishes itself from most sibling benchmark tools by focusing on property type and naming concrete data sources, though it lacks an explicit verb phrase like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 target audience is stated ('asset managers, property managers, and acquisition underwriters'), giving some implied usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings such as get_cap_rate_benchmark or get_property_tax_benchmark, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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