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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the core behavior—returning nearby properties flagged by a classifier—and the per-call cost, but it does not clarify how 'around' is defined, whether the subject is excluded, or what the classifier flag represents.

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 a single short sentence followed by a pricing line. The main meaning is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not strictly needed. However, the description leaves unanswered how the surrounding area is defined, how this differs from the sibling public-housing risk tool, and what identifier format is expected.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain gnaf_id but only loosely refers to it as 'the subject.' The parameter name is recognizable and the tool has only one parameter, but no format, source, or concrete semantics are provided.

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 identifies the returned resource: properties around the subject that were flagged by the public-housing classifier. This distinguishes it from a property-level risk tool, though it reads as a fragment rather than an explicit command with a verb.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool has a near-twin, properties_risks_public_housing, but the description does not explain that this tool is for surrounding properties while the sibling is for the subject's own risk.

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