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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses data provenance, geographic scope, and an enterprise access requirement, but omits whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, and output format.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key data sources and scope. The trailing 'Included with Chandler Enterprise' slightly repeats the leading 'ENTERPRISE' label, but otherwise it is tight and waste-free.

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 data-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what indicators are returned but leaves critical gaps: parameter usage, read-only behavior, and output structure are unexplained. An agent cannot confidently invoke it without guessing how to filter or limit results.

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 0% and both parameters (limit, state) are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'county' and 'STATE level' but never explains how the state or limit parameters affect the query, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.

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 the specific data assets (Census building permits, BLS QCEW, NY Fed delinquency) and their geographic granularity (county, state), making the resource clear. It lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'retrieves') and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like chandler_signals, so it falls short of 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the enterprise access note. The enterprise note is an access condition, not usage guidance.

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