get_state_denial_stats

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

Annotations are absent, but the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains the historical HMDA 2025 source, the exact denominator used for the statistics, the 'where published' caveat, and explicitly disclaims individual-level prediction or lender recommendation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise source/methodology, a useful caveat, and attribution. Every sentence adds relevant context, and there is no irrelevant verbosity.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, meaning, source, denominator, and limitations. It does not explicitly enumerate the return fields beyond the gap, but the phrase 'FHA denial statistics' plus the denominator detail is enough to make the tool usable.

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 is only one parameter and the input schema already covers it completely with a description, length constraints, and an example. The description merely repeats 'US state (two-letter code)' and therefore adds no real semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 explicitly defines the tool as returning FHA denial statistics for a US state, with a specific two-letter code, plus a defining output feature: the small-loan vs large-loan gap. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like national FHA stats and lender-level stats.

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 tool is implicitly scoped by the phrase 'for a US state' and the siblings make it obvious when to prefer national or lender-focused tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over an alternative or describe conditions under which the gap is not published.

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