hud_income_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns income thresholds by household size, which is useful but does not disclose other behaviors such as return format, whether multiple results can be returned, or any pagination. With annotations covering the basic safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the main purpose, then detail the data returned and use case. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it specifies the output content and geographic scope. It does not mention sibling resources like hud_list_counties for obtaining entity_id, but the schema already references hud_list_counties in the entity_id description. The description is sufficient for a straightforward lookup tool.

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%, so the parameters (year, state, entity_id) are already well-documented. The description adds contextual meaning by tying the scope to 'county, metro area, or entire state,' which maps to entity_id and state, but it does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves HUD Income Limits with a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It further specifies the geographic scope (county, metro area, or entire state), the income threshold categories (Very Low, Extremely Low, Low), and household sizes (1-8 persons), which distinguishes it from siblings like hud_fair_market_rents.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Used for affordable housing eligibility') and implies the scope (county/metro/state). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when fair market rents are needed), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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