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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, so the description's main contribution is listing the analytical outputs (demographics, income, etc.). This adds useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 short and begins with the purpose, but includes an unnecessary brand tagline ('USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO') that adds no functional value. This prevents it from being optimally concise.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what data it returns. It could be improved by mentioning the output format or clarifying location input, but it is adequately complete.

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% with simple descriptions for both parameters (location, state). The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 provides a detailed neighborhood or city analysis for investment due diligence, listing specific data points: demographics, income, employment, vacancy, housing stock, and investment grade. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like markets-compare or markets-stats.

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 phrase 'for investment due diligence' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, which would elevate it to a 5.

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