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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying 'Latest dated' and the 3-mile context, plus the explicit exclusion of appraisal, ARV, and profit claims. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the audit does not include.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key constraints. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. The parenthetical adds essential context without bloat.

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?

The tool has four parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the purpose and exclusions but leaves parameter usage completely unexplained. An agent would not know what to pass in each field, nor what the return format is. This is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (id, state, parcel_id, record_id). It does not clarify which are needed, how they relate to the parcel, or how to use them. The description provides no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is a major gap.

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 returns the latest dated public-record property audit for a parcel, with a specific 3-mile context. It also explicitly excludes appraisal, ARV, and profit claims, which differentiates it from potential siblings. The title 'Read a property audit' reinforces the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like estate_search or estate_parcel. The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or prerequisites. It only describes what it does, not when to choose it.

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