crehq_intelligence_preview

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

Discloses credit consumption (one monthly credit), the bounded nature of returns, and exclusions (no raw premium tables, no redistribution rights). Also explains the free-key behavior with a 402 prompt. This exceeds what annotations would provide, and no annotations are present to contradict.

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 action, and each sentence adds valuable context: credit consumption, return type, exclusions, and upgrade prompts for different key types. No filler or repetition; compact for the amount of guidance provided.

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 explains the return type ('bounded evidence frame') and its limitations, which is adequate for a preview tool. It also covers pricing/access contexts and alternatives. Minor gap: the exact structure of the evidence frame is not described, but for a controlled preview this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states, though it does enumerate question types that roughly map to preview_type enum values.

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 a bounded evidence frame for specified question types (tenant-credit, site-selection, etc.), distinct from other CREHQ tools. It uses specific verbs and resources, and differentiates itself as a credit-based preview rather than a raw premium data access tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for CREHQ Pro self-serve keys with a monthly preview credit, and when not: free keys get a 402 upgrade prompt, and full enterprise keys should use dedicated premium tools directly. Names the alternative category of tools.

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