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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the data source (FRED), refresh frequency (quarterly), and cost ($0.02 USDC per call). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences, with the core content front-loaded and the audience, freshness, and pricing each earning their place. The opening phrase repeats the tool name somewhat, but the overall structure is tight and scannable.

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 should at least hint at return structure; it lists data components but not units, format, or how scenario and property_type interact. Still, for a simple optional-parameter benchmark call, the content, source, cadence, and cost provide enough for basic 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 must compensate. It references 'property type' and 'stressed cap rate scenarios,' which map to the two parameters, but it does not explain the enum values, optionality, or default behavior when parameters are omitted.

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 as CRE debt stress benchmarks and lists concrete outputs: live FRED delinquency, CMBS delinquency by property type, maturity wall exposure, and stressed cap rate scenarios. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic CRE debt tools, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides'.

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 and quarterly update cadence imply when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cre_debt_benchmark or get_cap_rate_benchmark. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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