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

Discloses billing semantics ('Bills one billable unit per top-level person record retrieved'), the non-billable count_only mode, the exclusion of phones/emails/relatives from person rows, the return shape (priority-ordered flat scalar rows with RecordStatus and PersonID), and compliance responsibility. These are substantive behavioral details beyond the sparse annotations.

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 purpose and key routing instructions are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence adds needed information. The single dense paragraph is effective but could be slightly more scannable; no sentence is clearly wasteful.

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 the billing side effect, multi-tool routing, and absence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, prerequisites, alternatives, billing, return shape, and exclusions. Nothing material 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 fully compensates: it marks radar_id as required, explains count_only's return fields (result_count, estimated_cost, empty results[]) and billing status, and clarifies fields' default Standard fieldset and comma-separated Product field id format.

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 person records associated with one Property by RadarID') and enumerates the record types (owners, principals, trustees, entities). It explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming what it is not (skip-trace parity, property field export) and routes to alternatives.

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 guidance: 'When the user asks who owns a resolved property, call this after get_property_summary; do not use get_fields or get_property_details for ownership alone.' It also instructs using count_only before purchase and names the Phase 2 tools for contact data.

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