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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by defining the refinance-gap proxy (NOI at securitization under 9% of today's balance) and the filter-exclusivity constraint, which are not in annotations. It does not describe result ordering or size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and maturity-year grouping before the derivative detail. Dense with parentheticals but every clause (metric list, proxy definition, filter rule) earns its place.

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, yet the description enumerates all returned measures and the three grouping modes (overall, property type, state), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Nothing material is missing for a two-optional-parameter read-only aggregate.

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 coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline; the description earns above that by stating the mutually-exclusive filter constraint and confirming that omitting filters yields the overall view, semantics the schema itself does not encode.

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+resource ('CMBS loans still reporting, by maturity year') and enumerates the exact measures produced (count, balance, average note rate, share with NOI below 9% of balance, comparison to median new-loan rate). This is clearly an aggregate maturity-wall analysis, distinguishable from sibling tools like get_cmbs_rates or find_cmbs_lenders.

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?

Explains the available filtering modes ('Overall, by property type or by state') and adds the operative constraint 'one filter at a time,' which tells the agent how to call it. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_cmbs_rates or get_cmbs_underwriting, so no exclusion guidance.

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