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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about data sources (FHFA HPI, FRED, Census) and the nature of the data, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. Credit is given for source transparency, but the bar is lower due to 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently lists metrics, sources, and audience without redundant words. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional enum parameters, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description provides adequate context about what data is returned (metrics list) and where it comes from. It does not describe the return structure, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 for the two enum parameters. It partially explains 'market tier' through the phrase 'by market tier,' but it provides no explanation for the 'property_type' parameter. This leaves one parameter completely undocumented, which is a significant gap for a low-coverage 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 tool's purpose: providing residential real estate market benchmarks with a specific list of metrics (home price indices, price-to-rent ratios, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cap_rate_benchmark or get_rental_market_benchmark, which focus on different benchmarks.

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 names the target audience ('residential investors, agents, developers, and housing analysts') and implies usage through the metric list, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling benchmark tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks direct alternative guidance.

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