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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it 'Returns markets sorted by distance with investment metrics,' which informs the agent about the output format and ordering. There is no contradiction with annotations, and no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits) are disclosed, but the output behavior is a meaningful addition.

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 concise, with the main functionality and output behavior in two short sentences. However, it includes a third sentence, 'USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO,' which is a brand tagline that adds no value for an AI agent and could be considered noise. Overall, the structure is front-loaded and efficient, but the tagline slightly reduces the conciseness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of rich annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and output behavior. However, it does not mention the ability to filter by 'type' (state, county, city, etc.), which is a key parameter in the schema, nor does it describe the return structure in more detail. Still, the schema and annotations fill most gaps, making this description adequate.

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 100%, with all five parameters having explicit descriptions (e.g., 'Latitude', 'Longitude', 'Search radius in miles (default 25)'). The description does not add new meaning to the parameters; it merely mentions 'within a radius,' which aligns with the existing schema. Since the schema carries the parameter documentation, the description is not required to compensate, but it also does not enhance the parameter semantics.

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: 'Find nearby real estate markets within a radius using PostGIS proximity search.' It specifies a distinct verb ('Find') and resource ('nearby real estate markets') and mentions the output ('Returns markets sorted by distance with investment metrics'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like markets-search or markets-screener by focusing on proximity/radius search rather than general search or screening.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to find markets near a geographic location within a radius. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the first sentence implies the specific use case. Sibling tool names (e.g., markets-compare, markets-stats) offer further context, but the description itself gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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