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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context beyond that — and it does, enumerating the return payload (fit/no-fit with reason, max loan by LTV/LTC and DSCR, binding constraint, payment incl. HUD MIP, term, warnings, ranked by max loan). This is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the program scope is front-loaded before the payoff list. The first sentence is long and clause-heavy (nested program enumerations), which slightly hurts scannability, but every element earns its place.

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 23-parameter computation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the programs, the eligibility verdicts, the computed outputs, the ranking, and the excluded product types. An agent knows what it will get back and what the tool will not tell it.

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%, including defaults, ranges, enum meanings and conditional usage ('used only when noi is omitted'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level guidance of its own beyond mentioning HUD MIP, 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?

Specific verb ('Runs the multifamily.online comparison app'), precise resource (one 5+ unit building), and explicit program scope (Fannie DUS/Small, Freddie Optigo Conventional/Small, HUD 223(f)/221(d)(4)/223(a)(7)). It also states which loan types are out of scope, so an agent can tell it apart from get_program_terms and get_treasury_yields without opening the schema.

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 description makes the use case clear (size/compare one deal across agency and HUD programs) and rules out SBA, bank, CMBS, bridge and DSCR products. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to get_program_terms or get_treasury_yields, so the sibling relationship is left implicit.

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