cal_dpa_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns up to 25 ranked programs with specific fields, which is informative. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects, but these are not critical for a search tool.

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: first defines purpose and output, second gives usage examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.

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 5 parameters (all optional) and no output schema. The description covers what is returned and the filtering logic. It does not mention error cases or pagination, but for a search tool, the level of detail is sufficient.

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%, with each parameter well-described (e.g., state: 'Two-letter US state code...'). The description provides overarching context but adds little to individual parameter meaning. 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 finds Down Payment Assistance programs with specific filters (state, county, FTHB, type). It lists returned fields (URLs, eligibility, amount, program type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cal_fact_lookup or cal_lender_details, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly lists example queries ('DPA in <state>', 'first-time buyer help in <county>') and program types (grant, MCC, etc.), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies when not to use by focusing on DPA, and sibling tools cover other areas.

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