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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why this is not a benign read: it 'Bills one billable unit per row returned,' while count_only is explicitly non-billable. It also discloses a status caveat ('Partial until isNewConstruction is available'), the return shape ('flat results[] with RecordStatus on every row'), and field-selection limits (500 ids cap) — all beyond what annotations provide.

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 the purpose before the dense parameter rundown, and nearly every clause carries distinct information. However, the parameter block is a single semicolon-chained paragraph that is harder to scan than a short structured list would be.

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?

For a 9-parameter, billable, no-output-schema tool this covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites (get_fields), cost-safety path (count_only), status caveat, return shape, and per-parameter filtering behavior. Nothing material is left undocumented.

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%, so the description must carry the full burden and does: limit default 100 with purchase semantics, fields default Standard plus the 500-id cap, documentId scoping and its effect on fields defaulting, documentGroup csv vocabulary and its AND relationship with documentType, and dateRange's exact YYYY-MM-DD inclusive RecDate meaning.

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+resource+scope: 'Fetch billable recorder history (title chain) for one Property by RadarID,' then enumerates the document classes returned. It explicitly differentiates from a sibling ('Not for scalar property record (use get_property_details)'), so an agent can route without opening either 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 actionable when-to-use guidance: 'recommend before purchase when chain size is unknown' for count_only, and 'Use get_fields(tool="get_property_transactions") before first purchase.' It also names the exclusion (get_property_details for scalar records) and specifies document_group is preferred over document_type for intent-based filters.

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