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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that safety profile. It adds useful behavioral context: data sources, live vacancy from FRED, and the $0.02 per-call cost. It stops short of describing update frequency, response format, or data limitations, but with annotations covering safety, this is strong.

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 efficiently structured with a front-loaded summary, followed by sources, audience, and pricing. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 query tool, the description covers the key output metrics, data sources, target users, and cost. It is missing only minor details like default behavior when parameters are omitted and return format, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 carries the burden. It connects both parameters indirectly: 'asking rents by unit type' maps to unit_type and 'rent-to-income ratios by market tier' maps to market_tier. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify optionality, defaults, or what happens when no parameters are supplied.

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 the tool provides rental market benchmarks, listing specific metrics: asking rents by unit type, live vacancy rate from FRED, rent growth trends, and rent-to-income ratios. It is specific about the resource and content, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighboring sibling tools like get_residential_market_benchmark or get_hud_fair_market_rent.

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 a clear target audience ('landlords, multifamily investors, and property managers'), which implies when the tool would be useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving the selection vs. siblings mostly to inference.

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