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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context — the two-year window is measured against the HUD file date, and the expiration counted is the final/overall one — but says nothing about result size, paging, or what a state-scoped response looks like beyond the metric list.

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?

Two sentences, with the metric list front-loaded and the state/default behavior trailing. The first sentence is long and heavily comma-laden, but each clause names a distinct countable and none is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so by enumerating the five reported figures. It falls short on shape details — whether a state query returns a single row, and in what order the national ranking comes back — but an agent knows enough to call it 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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the enum and the note that rank_by is ignored with 'state'. The description's only parameter contribution is restating the 'omit state for national ranking' behavior, so it sits at the baseline for a well-described 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 names a concrete resource (Section 8 contract counts per state) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: properties, active contracts, assisted units, contracts expiring within two years, and below-90%-FMR HAP contracts. It is clearly a different artifact from expiring_contracts or screen_below_fmr, though it never explicitly names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 only usage instruction is 'Omit state for the national ranking,' which is a parameter-mode hint rather than guidance on when this tool beats expiring_contracts or screen_below_fmr. An agent can infer this is the aggregate/summary entry point, but that inference is left to it.

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