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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context on top: it consumes a streaming pipeline to completion, returns a final aggregated report, costs 5 credits per fresh request, and repeat lookups within the cache window are free. The explicit data-coverage gaps are exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs before spending credits.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then exclusions, then return/cost behavior — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The enumerated flag list is slightly long but earns its place by scoping the scan.

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 one-parameter, read-only scanning tool with an output schema, the description still explains the return shape (flags with type, category, distance, score, plus a 0–10 aggregate and risk level) and the cost/caching model. Coverage gaps and the sibling alternative are named, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

With a single required `address` parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load. It contributes the "US property address" country constraint, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about expected format, geocoding failures, or whether a full street address with ZIP is required.

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?

A specific verb/resource pair ("scan a US property address for location red flags") followed by a concrete enumeration of what counts as a flag — bars, industrial sites, airports, rail lines, cemeteries, power lines, blight. It also draws an explicit boundary against `get_full_report` for flood/FEMA data, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling set without opening any 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 description says clearly when not to reach for this tool ("no flood-zone, crime, or school data") and redirects flood/FEMA queries to `get_full_report`. It does not give a positive when-to-use framing versus other location-adjacent siblings (e.g. `get_property_condition`, `get_full_report` as a whole), so routing is clear only for the excluded cases.

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