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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (source project fields, unit counts, a labeled screening date) and a critical interpretive caveat that year-15 status is not legal/compliance proof.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation before the use case and disclaimer. The disclaimer earns its place given the legal/financial stakes, though it is slightly long.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by naming returned fields and the screening date. But with 7 parameters and low schema coverage, parameter behavior is under-specified, leaving the definition only marginally adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 43% across 7 parameters; the description mentions none of the filters (state, min_units, limit, offset, response_format), so it does not compensate for the documentation gap. An agent gets no guidance from the description on how parameters shape the query.

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?

States a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Find HUD LIHTC properties whose placed-in-service year reaches the federal 15-year reference date in an exact window.' An agent immediately knows what this tool returns and the exact computation it performs, which is a specialized operation rather than a generic property search.

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?

Provides an explicit use case ('LIHTC projects reaching year 15 in 2027') and clear boundaries on what the result does NOT mean ('Year 15 is not proof that affordability restrictions expire'). However, it names no alternative tool for related housing/refinance questions, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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