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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the per-call cost ($0.02 USDC), data provenance (FHFA HPI, FRED, Census), and the specific metric bundle returned. These details help an agent anticipate side effects and authoritativeness. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four short sentences with no dead weight: the lead identifies the resource, the em-dash list names the metrics, and the source, audience, and pricing sentences each add distinct, non-overlapping value. Slightly heavier than strictly necessary (audience list could be trimmed), but well front-loaded.

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 read-only retrieval tool with two enum parameters and no output schema, the description covers the metric set, sources, audience, and cost — a reasonable package. However, it omits property_type semantics, doesn't state that both parameters are optional, and never tells the agent what default scope (national? single-family?) applies when parameters are omitted. An agent cannot fully predict the result of an unparameterized call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It maps market_tier via the phrase 'by market tier,' but property_type is never mentioned — an agent cannot tell whether all metrics apply to every property type or how the two parameters interact. The enum values are self-descriptive, but the description adds too little to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with 'Residential real estate market benchmarks' and enumerates five concrete metrics (home price indices, price-to-rent ratios, affordability, months of supply, homeownership rate) plus the 'by market tier' scope. This is a specific verb+resource description that differentiates it from close siblings like get_rental_market_benchmark and get_housing_supply_benchmark through its metric set, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool versus its near-neighbors (get_rental_market_benchmark, get_housing_supply_benchmark, get_cap_rate_benchmark, get_mortgage_market_benchmark). The audience line ('For residential investors, agents, developers, and housing analysts') describes who benefits, not when to invoke it, and no when-not or alternative-routing information is provided.

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