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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost in API credits, the inclusion of all 22 data sources plus an AI narrative, and that the analysis flags only notable outliers. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, though it doesn't detail the response format or rate limits.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second details what's included, the third notes the cost and analysis behavior. No redundant or tautological content.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, scope (US addresses), intended audience, feature set, and cost. It does not specify the output structure, but the tool is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap, making it nearly complete.

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?

The single parameter (address) has full schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already provides a clear example and definition. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: getting comprehensive property risk data plus an AI-written narrative analysis. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly mentioning it includes all 22 data sources from get_property_risk_data and adds a written assessment, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by addressing homebuyers or investors and notes the tool is a superset of get_property_risk_data, which suggests when to choose this over the sibling. However, it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternative comparison, so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level criterion.

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