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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered and the description correctly doesn't repeat it. It instead adds meaningful behavioral context: each fact is returned with its primary source, with citations and dates given inline (PL 119-101 §212, July 2026; 2026 LIHTC bond test), which tells the agent the response is provenance-bearing and temporally scoped.

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 with a nominal overview followed by a flat topic list; no filler or throat-clearing. It is dense and slightly list-like, but every clause names a distinct content area, so nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description does the essential job: it scopes the content by topic and tells the agent that answers come with sources and dates. What is missing is minor — no statement of the as-of date for the whole snapshot or of what topics fall outside its coverage.

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 schema takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 names a specific resource ('the current state of RAD law and terms') and enumerates the concrete subject areas covered — permanence and the unit cap, governing notices, PBV/PBRA contract terms, FHA premium, LIHTC bond test — so an agent knows exactly what payload it is asking for. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_rad_rents or size_rad_debt, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only implied: the enumerated subject list signals 'call this for authoritative RAD program/law facts,' but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_rad_rents, size_rad_debt, or search_conversions, nor any prerequisites. An agent can infer the fit, but must reason it out from topic overlap rather than being routed.

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