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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the data being 'pre-computed for 18,800+ cities' and the score components, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. This is consistent with the calibration example for get_calls.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use cases. However, it includes a marketing tagline 'USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO' which is unnecessary noise and slightly detracts from 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?

For a simple read-only screener with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and when to use it. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the purpose is clear enough. The annotations and schema cover most other details.

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%, and all parameters (limit, state, min_score) have descriptions. The description mentions the 'investment score (0-100)' which relates to min_score, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Screen US cities by composite investment score (0-100)' with specific criteria. It distinguishes from siblings like markets-search or markets-compare by focusing on screening by investment score, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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 usage context: 'Ideal for finding markets for fix and flip, Airbnb short-term rental, BRRRR, ground up construction, or buy-and-hold strategies.' It tells the agent when to use this tool but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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