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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the computation chain and the loan sizing rule (lowest of 90% of cost, LTV limit, 1.45x coverage) plus the example-default fallback. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned results.

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 core action is front-loaded in the opening clause, and every listed item corresponds to a real computed output. The single long sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but no clause is 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?

For a 17-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description does the important work of naming the outputs and explaining defaults, and the annotations cover safety. It still leaves the exact return structure and units unspecified, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 the per-parameter baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that total cost bundles land, hard, soft, construction interest and HUD fees, and by spelling out the HUD 232 sizing logic and the default-to-example behavior, which clarifies how inputs interact.

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 and resource ('Runs the Absorption development calculator') and enumerates the outputs it produces (yield on cost, HUD loan sizing, lease-up, escrows, equity). The purpose is unambiguous, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools rank_states and state_demand_supply.

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 calculator framing, and the closing note that unset inputs fall back to example values is useful operational guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or steering toward alternatives, so an agent must infer the context.

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