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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns aggregated medians alongside per-square-foot figures, which tells the agent this is a comparative analytics call rather than a raw record listing. It does not disclose ordering or error behavior, keeping it below 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the returned metrics and filters in a logical order. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only cost is that a single long sentence is harder to scan than two shorter ones.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating return fields (revenue, opex, NOI, expense ratio, occupancy, DSCR, valuations, medians), which is the right call for a read-only aggregation tool. All seven parameters are schema-documented, so the remaining gap is minor: no note on result ordering or what an empty comp set looks like.

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 every filter (cbsa, type, state, min/max_sqft, built_after, limit) is already documented in structured form. The description only restates the filter dimensions as a category list ('type, metro, state, size and year built') without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Single-property CMBS loans as comparables') and enumerates the metrics returned (NOI, DSCR, occupancy, valuations), so an agent can tell it apart from search_loans or tenant_exposure. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Framing the data 'as comparables' implies the use case is benchmarking a property against similar loans, and the filter list hints at how to narrow a comp set. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_loans/get_loan, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a metro or type to get meaningful medians.

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