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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive profile; the description adds substantial context beyond them—'never bills', the exact response envelope semantics (resolved only when exactly one suggestion), max 20 suggestions, truncation behavior, and the requirement to confirm the user's pick when resolved is false.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, coverage caveat, return envelope, then routing guidance. Every sentence carries operational weight, though the sentence count is on the higher side for a single-parameter tool.

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, so the description supplies the full return shape (query, resolved, message, suggestions[], total_match_count) and the downstream confirmation workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or follow up 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?

Only one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load—it specifies the input is a US street address, notes nationwide coverage, and describes the query echo. It stops short of stating format/length constraints, but adds clear meaning beyond the bare 'address: string' 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('resolve a US street address to Property RadarIDs') plus the goal (disambiguation before single-property tools), which clearly separates it from siblings like search_properties and get_property_details.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this before single-property tools, do not skip based on state, call get_property_summary for model-safe Q&A, get_property_persons for ownership, get_property_details only for billable scalars, and search_properties when truncated. Names alternatives and exclusions directly.

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