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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the exact output structure (subject property AVM, sales list with price/sqft/distance/beds/baths, rental comps, market stats), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not address rate limits or auth needs, but that is acceptable given it is a read-only open-world query.

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 well-structured with 'USE WHEN' and 'RETURNS' sections, making it scannable and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information—no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing return values. It covers purpose, usage triggers, and output content well. However, it does not explicitly state that at least one location parameter (address or lat/long) is required for a meaningful search, which is a notable gap for a tool with zero required parameters in the schema.

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%—each parameter has a description (e.g., address 'Full U.S. property address (preferred — gives best results)'). The description does not add much beyond the schema; it reiterates 'near a property' but does not clarify input constraints or parameter interplay. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Find recent comparable property sales and rental comps near a property.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lookup_zoning or check_flood_zone by focusing on comparable sales data. The explicit list of user queries ('what are comps in this area', 'recent sales near here') reinforces the tool's purpose.

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 'USE WHEN' section provides explicit trigger phrases and use cases ('investor deal evaluation, CMA, and market analysis'), giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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