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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and closed-world scope. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: SEC Form ABS-EE as the source, closed-loan basis, securitization windows, and included statistics such as the middle half, loan counts, and 5- vs 10-year split.

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 two sentences, front-loads the metric and scope, and each clause adds relevant scope or output detail. There is no filler.

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?

Given the rich annotations, absent output schema, and fully documented single optional parameter, the description provides enough source, scope, and return-content detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is one optional enum parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the property_type values and that omission means all types. The description mirrors 'overall or for one property type' but adds no new syntax or default semantics.

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 states a precise resource and scope: median original note rates on CMBS loans securitized over 90 days, 180 days, and 12 months, optionally by property type. It is clear enough to separate from rate-unrelated siblings, but it does not explicitly position itself against tools like get_cmbs_underwriting or get_cmbs_maturity_wall.

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?

Usage is implied by the context of current CMBS rates, and the description adds a useful caveat that these are rates on closed loans rather than a quote. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives among the sibling tools.

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