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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description goes far beyond them: it discloses per-layer coverage rates (100% normative vs 11.2% structure-type mentions, 0% for completed apartments), warns that 'unknown' is not 'no', and states that coverage plus how_to_find_out always accompany the response. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Heavy but front-loaded: the two-axis framing and the 'model is confidently wrong here' hook come first, followed by coverage facts and the unknown-handling rule. The dense archive statistics earn their place by calibrating trust, though a few sentences could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (two layers, embedded coverage, how_to_find_out) and how to relay it. Nothing an agent needs to call this 3-parameter, zero-required tool correctly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning about how axis maps onto the two analytical layers and what an empty complex_name yields (normative-layer-only answer with its own validity). It reinforces rather than merely repeats the schema's parameter text.

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?

States a specific judgment task (can this apartment be altered, on a wall axis and a plumbing axis) with the concrete questions it resolves. It differentiates itself from siblings by naming realty_policy_rules (full statute text) and realty_presale/realty_notice_facts (house_manage_no source), though the boundary with realty_policy_rules is slightly blurred since the normative layer's full text is said to live there.

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?

Lists the exact user questions it answers and explicitly says complex_name may be omitted (normative-only answer). It adds a negative rule (do not infer structure type from completion year) and directs the agent to how_to_find_out when values are missing, but offers no explicit 'use sibling X instead when Y' routing for the general case.

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