get_national_fha_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the data source, calculation basis, denominator, and explicitly states this is not a prediction or recommendation. It omits operational details like rate limits or output shape, but for a read-only stats tool this is strong.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core result. Every sentence adds value: what it returns, how it was computed, and important caveats/attribution. No wasted words.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope, source, caveats, and attribution. The sibling names provide additional context that reinforces the national-vs-lender/state distinction.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter-specific detail because none are needed.

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 returns national FHA denial statistics, specifically denial rate and volumes, from the 2025 federal record. This is a specific verb+resource and is distinguished from sibling tools by the 'National' scope.

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 national scope is explicitly clear, which lets an agent infer when to use this tool versus state-level or lender-level siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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