crehq_company_site_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is empirical/modeled rather than authoritative, and adds the caveat about not presenting as stated requirements. This is a key behavioral trait. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or read-only status, but the modeled-vs-stated distinction is substantive.

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: the first packs the content scope, and the second adds usage and caveat. Both are necessary; no filler. The first sentence is long but informative, and the caveat 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description partially substitutes by listing what the response includes (medians, ranges, percentiles, mix types, layer coverage/confidence). It also explains the nature of the data. It lacks some details like response envelope or pagination, but the essentials are covered.

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% for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it also doesn't need to since the schema fully documents each parameter.

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 identifies the tool as a 'CREHQ Modeled Site Pattern' for a brand, with a specific verb phrase 'Use this to infer revealed-preference site patterns'. It lists distinct output metrics (empirical medians, road-type mix, co-tenant mix, trade-area density, etc.) that differentiate it from sibling tools like raw location lists or company real estate data.

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 states explicitly to use the tool for inferring revealed-preference site patterns, and warns against presenting results as company-stated requirements without provenance. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not name alternative tools.

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