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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does an excellent job: it discloses the minimum sample size of 100 decisioned applications, the HMDA 2025 data source and specific action/loan_type filters, the historical non-predictive nature, and a concrete example (Cleveland). This exceeds what a minimal description would 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 dense but well-structured: intent, parameter, return values, example, exclusions, source, and attribution. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important framing is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values (lowest/highest rates, gap in points, counts, source reference), the data source, eligibility threshold, scope limitations, and caveats. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 the metro parameter with 100% coverage, including the example 'Cleveland, OH' or 'cleveland-oh'. The description adds usage context by embedding the parameter in trigger questions, but it does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool answers specific metro-level questions about lender differences and FHA denial gaps, and clearly defines the returned resource as a claim passport for that metro. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools because the metro scope and lender-gap focus are explicit.

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 trigger questions for when to use it and explicitly states NOT FOR ZIP/neighbourhood questions or as evidence of lender misconduct. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a fully explicit when-not/alternatives structure.

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