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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds substantial behavior: 'Never bills', the exact return shape (radar_id, provided_by, description, results), the fixed 14-field allowlist, the deliberate omission of street address/ZIP, optional field_notes for DistressBand/EquityBand, and related_tools[] pointers to billable depth. It also flags the bands as coarse triage only.

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-loaded with purpose and scope, and nearly every clause carries routing or behavioral information. It is on the long side with some repetition of the exclusion set (bands as triage, no CSV/export, distinct from get_property_insights), which keeps it from a 5.

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 enumerates the return payload, the fixed field allowlist, the deliberate omission of address/ZIP, and the related_tools pointers, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. Combined with annotations covering safety and a single documented parameter, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description carries the burden. It explains that radarId is a PropertyRadar identifier obtained via resolve_address or already known to the user, which meaningfully disambiguates the parameter beyond the bare 'radarId' string type.

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 ('Return a model-safe summary of one Property by RadarID') and immediately scopes it against siblings ('not for bulk scoring, market sweeps, or looping across many RadarIDs'). It also names what it is distinct from ('future get_property_insights') and rules out CSV/export workflows, so an agent can place it without opening a schema.

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 preconditions ('use after resolve_address when resolved is true, or when the user already has a RadarID') and explicit exclusions (bulk scoring, market sweeps, looping). It routes specific intents to alternatives: ownership to get_property_persons, exact distress/equity/comps/history to the related billable tools, and market-level characterization to search_properties/get_properties_details.

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