hud_income_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the data returned (thresholds by household size) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or parameter conflicts. This adds some value beyond annotations, warranting a 3.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information, making it efficient and clear.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what data it returns, and its use case. It could briefly mention the effect of specifying multiple parameters (e.g., state vs. entity_id), but overall it is complete enough.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description does not add extra detail beyond what's in the schema (e.g., the mention of entity_id referring to hud_list_counties is already in the schema description). 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 verb 'Get', the specific resource 'HUD Income Limits', and the geographical scope (county, metro area, state). It also details what data is shown (Very Low, Extremely Low, Low thresholds by household size) and the use case (affordable housing eligibility), making it distinct from sibling tools like hud_fair_market_rents.

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 implies when to use the tool (for affordable housing eligibility) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the clear naming and context, the usage context is clear, but direct alternative guidance is absent.

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