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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-side-effects, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful provenance ("Drawn from RealityCents articles") and a scope exclusion ("No rate quotes"), implying static, possibly non-live content. It does not disclose staleness/update frequency, which would matter for 2026 loan limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the content type, followed by the topic enumeration and two short constraint sentences. Every sentence earns its place; only the near-duplication of the enum values is slightly wasteful.

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-enum, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition conveys enough: what it returns (concise factual notes), its source, and its exclusions. Missing only a hint about return shape/format and content currency.

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 topic enum enumerates the allowed values, and the description restates them in prose (property tax, VA loans, leasehold vs fee simple, condo approval, loan limits, BAH/COLA, closing costs, pre-approval). This mirrors the schema rather than adding semantics about what each topic returns, and schema description coverage is 0%.

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?

Names a specific resource and content type: factual notes on a defined set of Hawaii mortgage topics, sourced from RealityCents articles. It is clearly distinguishable from the calculator siblings, though the verb is implied ("notes on...") rather than stated as an explicit action.

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 "No rate quotes" boundary is a real when-not signal, and the topic list implies this is for static reference facts rather than computation. However, it never explicitly says to use this instead of va_purchase_power or calculate_* when the agent wants numbers versus facts.

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