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

The description discloses side effects beyond the annotations: it 'creates a private audit record' and 'may create or reuse short-lived scoped session and consent records.' It also states boundaries ('does not expose owner, payment, or raw county records') and that it does not 'change an external system,' which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by side effects and then non-goals. Every clause adds useful information.

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 tool with a rich input schema, an output schema, and four required consent-related parameters, the description is complete enough: it states the prerequisite (explicit consent), the side effects, and the data boundaries. There is nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to invoke it that 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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only the 'homeowner-provided' nuance to address and the consent requirement, but does not explain the optional context object or the specific role of consentEvidenceId beyond what the schema states. This is an acceptable baseline given the schema's coverage.

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 action ('Look up a homeowner-provided address and return bounded property context', which clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools explain_evidence_packet and get_county_requirements. It is specific enough for an agent to know what check_property does.

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 names the core trigger ('homeowner-provided address') and an explicit prerequisite ('requires explicit address consent'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context for when to call it is clear.

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