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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: a stated price of 1 credit per call, the tradeoff of broader coverage at the cost of less identity detail per person, and the chaining hint that `person_id` feeds `skip-tracing/person-details`. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination behavior.

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?

Headers ('What it returns', 'When to use it', 'Pricing', 'FAQ') make it scannable and every section earns its place, with the FAQ doing real routing work. Minor weakness: it leads with return contents rather than a one-line purpose statement, and the H1 title is duplicative of the tool title.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with annotations and an output schema both present, this covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, what it costs, and which sibling to pick instead. No material gaps remain.

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 `property_address` parameter is fully documented in the schema as a full US property address, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format guidance (e.g. parsing expectations) and, notably, does not explain what happens when the parameter is omitted even though the schema marks it non-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?

The opening line states a concrete resource (people associated with a property address) and enumerates the categories returned: historical residents, current and former owners, related family members. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, `property-owner` and `person-details`, so an agent can route 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?

There is a dedicated 'When to use it' section with two concrete scenarios, plus an FAQ entry that maps the whole family of tools: `property-owner` for the legal owner, `associated-people` for the wider net, `person-details` for the deep dive. Both when-to-use and which-alternative are spelled out.

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