get_mortgage_trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds useful context by specifying the return format (array of yearly summaries with detailed metrics) and data provenance (CFPB/FFIEC HMDA). No contradictions 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the verb and resource, and includes return content and source without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with rich schema coverage, the description is complete: it states purpose, scope, return structure, and data source. No output schema exists, but the listed yearly summary fields give adequate expectations.

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 descriptive text for both parameters, including enum values for area_type and a clear format for geoid. The description adds no further parameter-specific details beyond referencing 'single area', so 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 multi-year mortgage lending data for a single area, listing specific metrics (origination count, denial rate, median loan amount, etc.) and citing the HMDA source. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_mortgage_summary by emphasizing the multi-year trend aspect and single-area 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 phrase 'multi-year' and 'across all available HMDA years' clearly implies use for historical trend analysis of mortgage lending for one geographic area. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the contextual scoping is clear enough for basic selection.

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