Find Housing Area

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

Even though annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral context: BAH follows the permanent duty station, a wrong ZIP can resolve to a different real housing area, and locality-based naming means installations may not match directly. These are non-obvious behaviors that affect how an agent interprets results.

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 purpose, then builds context in compact paragraphs. Every sentence adds practical value, covering when to use it, why wrong ZIPs are dangerous, and how base names can fail to match. It is relatively long but each element is necessary for correct use.

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 lookup tool with subtle locality-matching hazards, the description covers the key contextual points: relationship to get_bah, duty-station rule, ZIP risk, naming caveats, and a fallback search strategy. Combined with 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema fully documents query, year, and limit. The description reinforces the role of query in the BAH workflow and mentions ZIP codes, but it does not add meaningfully new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Find the Military Housing Area for a place, and ZIP codes to query it with.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from get_bah, which is a sibling, by positioning this as the lookup step before rate retrieval.

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 says 'Use this before get_bah whenever you have a place name rather than a ZIP code, instead of supplying a ZIP from memory,' and it explains the risk of a wrong ZIP. It also gives a concrete fallback strategy for base names that don't match published area names, making usage conditions actionable.

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