Reverse-Calculate Max Offer Price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it back-solves from metrics, but doesn't detail any side effects, prerequisites, or limitations beyond that. This adds some context but not substantial behavioral depth beyond 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 concise, with two sentences that are perfectly front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second gives clear usage triggers. No wasted words.

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 nested objects and multiple parameters, but the description gives an adequate overview of its purpose and usage. It doesn't explain how assumptions work or the fact that multiple targets can be provided, but the schema descriptions cover these. Since there is no output schema, the description implies the return (max price) clearly enough. Overall it is complete for most agent needs.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions target return metrics and back-solving but doesn't elaborate on individual parameters. The schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema already covers.

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 calculates the maximum offer price for a multifamily deal based on target return metrics, using specific verbs and resources. It differentiates itself from sibling tools (analyze, score, market data) by focusing on pricing and explicitly invokes 'what should I offer?' which is a distinct use case.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when someone asks ...' which clearly indicates the trigger conditions. However, it does not mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions and explicit comparisons.

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