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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing the 5-credit cost and the implicit scope assumption (standard mid-grade refresh) that affects the result. It stops short of stating accuracy, geographic coverage, or failure behavior for unparseable addresses.

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 returns and when-to-use sections are front-loaded and scannable under headings, with no filler. The FAQ block partly restates the alternative-tool routing already covered above, which is the only redundancy.

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?

Return contents are described even though an output schema exists, routing to siblings is complete, and pricing/scope assumptions are covered. Missing only address-format expectations and error behavior for a single-parameter read tool, which is a minor omission.

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 0%, so the description would need to carry the meaning of `property_address`, and it never mentions the parameter or its expected format (full street address with city/state/zip). The schema's example value mitigates this, so a 3 reflects marginal compensation rather than a real gap.

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 (aggregate estimated renovation cost for a property) and enumerates what comes back (sqft basis and per-sqft cost-of-construction model). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closer-grained sibling `renovation-cost-breakdown`, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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 'When to use it' section names two concrete scenarios (quick fix-and-flip screening, feeding `flip-return`) and the returns section names the explicit alternative with the condition that selects it (room-by-room material/labor split). Exclusions are stated, not inferred.

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