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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: every rule is returned with its primary source and date, and SBA is disclosed up front as a not-eligible result with an SOP quote — an agent can anticipate a negative-result shape rather than treating it as an error.

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 resource and providers, then a compact list of returned fields — no filler sentences. The single sentence is long and list-heavy, which slightly hurts scannability, but every clause carries information.

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?

With one optional enum parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns field-by-field, that provenance (source + date) accompanies each rule, and the notable SBA not-eligible outcome. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage with an explicit enum and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description expands the program acronyms (Fannie Mae MHC, Freddie Mac Optigo MHC, HUD Section 223(f) MHC, SBA 7(a)/504), which adds modest meaning over the bare enum values but nothing about filtering behavior.

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 ('published rules for financing a mobile home park') and enumerates the four programs covered, plus the exact rule fields returned (max LTV, min DSCR, amortization, occupancy, etc.). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like size_park_loan or value_park_on_lot_rent, which compute numbers rather than retrieve rules.

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 content strongly implies when to call it (need underwriting criteria or program eligibility rules), and it usefully warns that SBA comes back as not eligible. However, it never states when to prefer a sibling or explicitly scopes itself against alternatives such as size_park_loan, leaving routing to inference.

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