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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds material context: what comes back (status, VA ID, data date, official lookup link), the PII prohibition, the current Oahu-only scope, and the caveat that VA approval does not guarantee loan approval. 'Read-only' restates the annotation, but the rest earns its place.

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 purpose, followed by return content and then constraints/caveats. No filler or redundancy.

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, but the description names the returned fields (status, VA ID, data date, verification link). Combined with the scope limit, PII rule, and approval caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters including fuzzy matching, okina/spelling tolerance, the VA ID format example, and the PII warning. The description only restates the accepted query forms, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (check/look up) and resource (Oahu condo on the VA accepted condo list), plus the three lookup key types. This is clearly distinguishable from the calculator and guidance siblings.

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?

Gives clear context ('Check whether an Oahu condo project is on the VA's accepted condo list') and a geographic exclusion ('Oahu only for now'), plus a data-hygiene exclusion ('Do not send a unit number or personal information'). It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for other VA topics, so no explicit alternative routing.

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