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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the returned HUD fields and Year 15 dates; it does not describe not-found or error behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core action and stays to one dense sentence with no filler. The parenthetical list of returned fields is justified because there is no output schema, though the sentence is long and slightly run-on.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it states the lookup key and enumerates the returned HUD and Year 15 fields. It stops short of covering not-found behavior or explicitly routing users from the search sibling.

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 single hud_id parameter already includes the regex pattern, an example, and a pointer to find_year15_properties. The description repeats an example ID but adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that this tool returns one tax credit property by HUD project id and enumerates the HUD record and Year 15 date fields included. The singular, ID-based scope distinguishes it in practice from search/list siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'by HUD project id' implies this is the lookup tool when an ID is already known, and the schema notes that IDs can be found with find_year15_properties. However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to the sibling tools.

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