AQL PropertyCheck — check one exact address (Gold Coast & Brisbane)

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: it never charges, returns coverage plus up to five findings and up to two unverified items with statuses and sources, and Gold Coast free checks do not promise paid-only physical context such as frontage, carriageway width, parking or building measurements. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the description is long for a one-parameter tool and repeats the free/no-key point with the closing 'Never charges'. The suburb list and the extended Brisbane/Gold Coast findings discussion are useful but could be tighter.

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?

With one required parameter, no output schema and read-only annotations, the description does a good job explaining what comes back: coverage, a short summary, findings, unverified items, statuses and sources. Exact response shape and status vocabulary remain unspecified, but that is a minor gap for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single address parameter already documents length, format, suburb and unit-number expectations with examples. The description adds some geographic intuition by listing example suburbs, but it does not add syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource (check a street address) plus geographic scope (City of Gold Coast or Brisbane City) and the free/no-key nature. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_full_report by explaining that the answer is a summary and that full report sections are listed under commercial.full_report.sections_available.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (one specific address in those two councils before renting, buying, relocating, working or studying) and when not to (listing search, valuations, mortgages, price forecasts). It also states that addresses elsewhere are reported as outside coverage, which resolves the main boundary case.

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

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: pricing, coverage-before-charge behavior, idempotency guarantees, x402 PaymentRequired flow, card checkout handling, zero-cost re-view, and the fact that detail='full' does not trigger a second charge. These details are important because the tool can initiate paid purchases despite being a report retrieval 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 purpose and key usage rule are front-loaded, and most sentences carry operational information needed for payment, re-view, and polling flows. It is dense and somewhat overpacked into a single paragraph, but the complexity of the paid-report flow justifies most of the length.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the report contents, section behavior, payment paths, idempotency, re-view flow, and card-checkout polling. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing to infer critical behavior.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds useful cross-parameter meaning: report_id re-views at zero cost, sections limits output at the same price, detail='full' restores enumerations from the stored report, and purchase_id plus access_token are used for polling a card purchase.

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 states a specific resource and format: full structured PropertyCheck JSON report for one covered address, including identity, coverage, capabilities, summary, and up to twelve sections. It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling by explaining that it should be called after check_address shows a full report is available.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: call after check_address indicates a full report is available, use report_id to re-view an already purchased report, and use address for a new report. It also distinguishes payment paths, including when to use x402 versus card and how to poll an existing card checkout.

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