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

Annotations only give the safety triad; the description adds the economically critical behavior the annotations cannot convey: billing is per row on purchase, usage is non-refundable, count_only returns estimated_cost and is non-billable, and each row is flat scalars only (no arrays or Contacts groups). This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before spending money.

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?

Front-loads the core verb and billing warning, then organizes details by parameter; nearly every clause carries actionable information. It is dense enough to feel like a semicolon-chained run-on, but little is genuinely redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains return shape (flat scalar rows), what count_only returns (total_result_count, estimated_cost, empty results[]), billing implications, and the related_tools[] envelope. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: criteria shape (JSON array like search_properties), count_only semantics, fields defaulting to the Standard fieldset per get_fields, limit default 100/max 1000, start for paging, and sort format (e.g. AVM:desc) are all explained. Minor gap: it never defines what 'Standard fieldset' contains and the prose says 'count_only' while the schema property is 'countOnly'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch billable property rows for a property set matching criteria') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_property_details for single RadarIDs, plus get_property_transactions, get_property_comps, and get_property_persons for depth. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus its neighbors.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (bulk property rows from criteria), when-not (not for a single RadarID), and a recommended workflow: use count_only and search_properties before large/billable sets. It also clarifies that Saved Audience is handled via InList inside criteria rather than an audience_id parameter.

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