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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. It adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying geographic coverage (all 50 states, DC, PR) and the type of data returned (home values, rents, cap rates, population), which helps the agent understand behavior without contradicting the 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 front-loaded with the key information in the first sentence, naming the database, scope, and return content. The second sentence is a promotional tagline ('USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO') that does little to help an agent invoke the tool, but it is short and does not significantly bloat the description.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing examples of CFO-level market data. It also covers the searchable geographic scope, which combined with the well-documented schema gives an agent enough context to use the tool correctly in most situations.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters (query, type, limit, state) at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient, making the baseline score of 3 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 identifies the tool as a search over a specified real estate market intelligence database, covering all US states plus DC and Puerto Rico. It states the resource and the action, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like markets-screener or markets-compare, so it loses the top score.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Search' and the database context, suggesting it is appropriate for finding market data by location. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as markets-screener or markets-stats, nor any exclusion criteria.

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