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

Discloses important behavioral traits: data is public and free, no API key required, and listings activity depends on MLS-live coverage. Despite no annotations, the description covers key aspects (read-only, no destructive actions). It does not mention rate limits, but the free nature implies minimal restrictions.

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 one paragraph of four sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It efficiently conveys the data returned, usage context, and key features (free, no key required). Every sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition.

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 lack of an output schema, the description fully explains the return value: specific Census demographics, agent density, and conditional listings activity. It also covers usage constraints (MLS-live coverage) and the required input pattern. No gaps remain for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., describing the zip-or-city+state requirement). The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning; it focuses on output. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 states the tool's function: 'Public-data-backed market snapshot for any US zip code' and enumerates specific data points (Census ACS demographics, agent density, listings activity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scout.agent_profile or scout.search_listings, which focus on individual agents or listings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this when an AI user asks 'what's the market like in [zip/city]'', providing a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools allows the agent to infer when other tools are more appropriate.

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