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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context by disclosing the 'partial (0.25) analysis credit' consumption and the return format (single score with confidence and rationale). This goes beyond what annotations provide, enhancing the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 four concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: function, use case, output, and cost. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides important context not in the schema: the cost in credits, the US-only scope, and the distinction from a full report. This makes the description complete for an agent deciding whether to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (address, state, mode) already described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Get a fast suitability score (0-100) for a US property without generating a full report.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing speed and the lack of a full report, which aligns with analyze_land being the full-analysis alternative.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this when the user wants a quick go/no-go assessment or an initial screening before committing to a full analysis.' This tells the agent exactly when to use it and implies the alternative of running a full analysis, effectively differentiating from sibling tools.

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