hud_income_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope and output content, but no behavioral caveats beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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?

Three concise sentences with the operation first, followed by output detail and a use case. No filler, though the final sentence is broad rather than actionable.

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 lookup with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers scope and output shape. There is no output schema, so a note on the returned record structure would improve completeness, but the description is adequate.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description's mention of county/metro/state maps to state and entity_id, but adds no syntax or provenance details beyond the schema, justifying the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Get HUD Income Limits,' and narrows scope to county, metro area, or state. It adds output specifics (Very Low, Extremely Low, Low thresholds by household size), but it never names sibling tools such as hud_fair_market_rents, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

'Used for affordable housing eligibility' gives a clear use-case context, but the description does not specify when to prefer this over hud_fair_market_rents or the HUD list helpers, and it offers no exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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