state_housing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful content context by listing possible data categories. It does not disclose pagination, rate limits, data sources, or variability between states, so it adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 main purpose, and provides a useful list of content types without unnecessary 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 lack of an output schema, the description offers some idea of return content but not structure or granularity. It is adequate for a query tool but could mention result format or data source caveats. It is complete enough for a basic tool but leaves gaps for an agent trying to interpret 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 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, leaving the schema as the primary source. 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 'Query housing data for a US state' and lists specific content areas (building permits, housing units authorized, foreclosure filings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like state_health or state_crime.

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?

It provides a clear context: state-level housing data, and suggests cross-referencing with HUD tools for federal data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the many other state_* tools (e.g., state_property, state_query) or indicate when this tool is preferred over them.

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