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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful context about what the returned payload includes, such as sources and verified reviews. It does not contradict the annotations, and what it adds is genuinely useful for setting agent expectations.

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 entire description is a single dense sentence with the main idea front-loaded ('Everything on file for one address') and a concise, delimited list of content groups. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation.

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?

For a one-argument read tool, the description gives a reasonably complete picture of the call result without requiring an output schema. It just lacks an explicit note that the property_id should come from a search tool, which is a meaningful gap for a new agent.

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?

The schema has one required property_id with 0% description coverage, so the description should fully clarify the parameter. It suggests the lookup is by address, which creates ambiguity because the parameter name is property_id rather than address, and it does not explain where to obtain a properly formatted property_id.

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 is specific about the resource ('everything on file for one address') and lists distinct content categories such as grade, safety flags, public records, tenant reports, and verified reviews. This clearly differentiates it from the search_* siblings without needing to open any schema.

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?

The description implies it is for retrieving a complete record when a property is already identified, but it never explicitly says to use search_properties first to obtain a property_id. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing, leaving the choice to inference.

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