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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: results are screenable without uploading anything, they are an observation from the public CFPB HMDA 2025 record (actions 1,2,3; loan_type 2), and explicitly not a prediction about any individual application.

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 "ANSWERS:" prefix front-loads the user intents, and the core return statement follows immediately. The trailing data-source, disclaimer, and CC BY attribution sentences are somewhat tangential to tool selection but short and not bloated.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (cohorts with size and definition), how the returned ids are consumed (by run_cohort), and the epistemic caveats. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing schema-side that the description needs to compensate for. It adds no parameter guidance, but none is possible or required.

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 specific verb and resource (returns public/published cohorts) plus concrete return content (size, definition) and explicitly distinguishes itself from run_cohort by noting the cohort ids it lists are what run_cohort accepts. An agent can tell it apart from the get_* siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Frames usage with the user questions it answers ("can I screen a group of lenders", "show me an example screen") and notes it needs no upload, which implies it is the discovery step before run_cohort. It names the downstream tool but gives no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion conditions.

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