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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns a score, letter grade, band, and top 3 factors, and that it is faster than a full analysis. This provides behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 structured with clear USE WHEN and RETURNS sections, making it skimmable. It contains some redundancy with the word 'quick' appearing multiple times, but every sentence contributes useful information, so it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, usage conditions, return payload, and performance tradeoff. It is self-contained and provides all necessary information for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The schema already fully describes the single 'address' parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional details about the parameter, so it relies on the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 specifies the tool retrieves a Buildability Score (0-100) for a property, using the verb 'Get' and clearly identifying the resource and numeric range. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's a quick pre-screening tool and explicitly mentions being faster than analyze_property.

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 explicitly lists 'USE WHEN' scenarios and provides triggers like 'is this worth analyzing' and 'quick check on this address'. It also names analyze_property as a slower alternative for full analysis, giving clear context for when to choose this tool, though it lacks explicit when-not scenarios.

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