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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly need not restate safety. It does add genuinely new behavioral context: US-only scope and a $0.25 USDC cost via x402, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call. It leaves out failure behavior for an unmatched or non-US address and does not say whether results are cached.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the returned payload, then use cases, then price — a sensible order with no filler. The 11-field enumeration is long but each item is informative field-coverage, not padding.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description substitutes a field list for the missing return documentation, and adds the pay-per-call cost. An agent has enough to decide and to call it; only error/empty-result behavior on an unresolvable address is unaddressed.

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% and the enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the US-address scope constraint ('any US property address') and never mentions the optional language parameter, so it adds a little meaning but no syntax beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: a commercial building profile keyed to a US property address, and it enumerates the returned fields (building class, year built, RSF, tenants, ownership, etc.). It doesn't name the nearby siblings it is not — interzoid_property_history or interzoid_facilities_profile — so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 three concrete contexts (CRE research, brokerage prospecting, property due diligence), which is real usage guidance rather than a restatement of the name. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives for cases like 'I want transaction history instead', which keeps it below a 5.

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