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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context: the data is public-record, dated, and scoped to a 3-mile radius, and it explicitly disclaims appraisal/ARV/profit outputs so the agent knows not to expect valuation. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or result size.

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?

A single densely packed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and the negative constraints parenthetically appended. No wasted words, though the terse phrasing leaves real gaps rather than being purely economical.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters mean the description should do far more than it does. It never clarifies which identifier to supply or what the returned audit contains, which is a critical gap for a lookup-style 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?

Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only obliquely references 'a parcel'. It does not explain the difference between id, parcel_id, record_id, or what state is for, leaving the identifier choice ambiguous.

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 resource (property audit), its scope (latest dated, public-record, 3-mile context) and a clear negative boundary (no appraisal, ARV or profit claim). The term 'audit' is distinct from siblings like estate_parcel or estate_owner, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Use is only implied by the noun phrase; there is no statement of when to call this versus estate_parcel, estate_owner, or estate_coverage, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the triggering condition entirely.

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