get_market_dcpi_rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: output includes a narrative block with CC-BY-4.0 attribution, and that the narrative is '~100-word CBRE/JLL-style analyst read'. No contradictions.

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?

All sentences add value: output fields, usage constraints, attribution note. Slightly verbose but well-structured with key info front-loaded. Could omit 'INCLUDES' in caps but minor.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully specifies output fields (verdict, scores, narrative) and includes licensing/attribution. Addresses corner cases (valid slugs from other tools). Complete for a single-market deep dive.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter market_slug, detailing format and origin. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('get'), resource ('DCPI rank for a single market'), and enumerates output fields (verdict, composite_score, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings rank_markets and compare_isos, ensuring no confusion.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('answer "should I build here?"') and when not to ('Do NOT use to rank many markets at once' or compare ISOs). Names specific alternative tools (rank_markets, compare_isos).

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