hmda_filtered_aggregations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safe-read nature is known. The description adds the filter scope and the recommendation to use filters, but does not disclose what happens with no filters, response format, or other behavioral details. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. The filter list and recommendation are each useful and there is no redundant repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 8 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the data type and main filter categories, but omits details about response shape and fails to reconcile the county mention with the actual schemas. It is adequate but not complete.

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% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. However, the description mentions a 'county' filter that is not present in the schema (parameters include states, msamds, leis, but no county). This introduces confusion. The FIPS code guidance for 'states' adds value, but the misleading county reference lowers the score.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'mortgage lending aggregation data' with an explicit scope 'filtered by geography or institution'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'hmda_nationwide_aggregations' by emphasizing filtering and noting 'Same demographic filters as nationwide'.

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 provides a clear recommendation: 'At least one geographic or institution filter recommended.' It also implies an alternative via 'Same demographic filters as nationwide,' which hints at the nationwide sibling tool, but does not explicitly state when to use one over the other.

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