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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds what each entry contains (live flag, caveats) and that it reports keyless versus keyed limits. It stops short of noting freshness/caching of the limit data or whether the coverage list is exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first enumerates the returned information, the second gives the trigger. No filler, and the primary content list is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, returned content, and when to reach for it. The only gap is guidance on acting on the result (e.g., that a not-live state or exhausted limit means analyze_property will fail), which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a single global query with no scoping inputs.

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 names a specific verb ("List") and enumerates the exact resources returned: covered states with live status and caveats, keyless/keyed call limits, and whether a new analysis can start now. That content profile clearly separates it from the sibling analysis tools (analyze_property, get_report), which operate on a single address rather than on service-level metadata.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: "Useful when an address is rejected as out of scope or a limit is reached." That tells the agent exactly when to fall back to this tool, though it doesn't state a proactive use case (e.g., checking before calling analyze_property) or name alternatives.

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