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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the process takes about a minute, returns a watermarked preview link and an unlock link. It also notes Florida resolves instantly and free. Missing details on failure modes, authorization needs, or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value, including time estimate, output details, and use cases. No redundant or vague language.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct tool invocation. It explains the input choices, output (two links), time cost, and typical use cases. An agent can understand what to expect and when to use this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about when to use address vs apn/state/county (e.g., 'Use this unless the user only has a parcel number'), but the parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed. The description does not add significant new semantics 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 clearly states the tool builds a cinematic 3D flyover listing from an address or parcel number, and distinguishes it from siblings (get_listing and get_pricing) which are retrieval tools. It lists specific property types (raw land, acreage, odd lots) making the purpose concrete.

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 explains when to use (properties where flat satellite photos undersell) and provides guidance on choosing between address and apn parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools/approaches, though the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose.

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