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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds value beyond them: the default resale source (CAD land-value median of comparable lots), which discounts are auto-applied, that every assumption is overridable, and that it is not an appraisal or advice. The note that it 'counts as a property lookup' hints at quota or metering behavior, which is useful context not present in 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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the trigger condition before the mechanics and closing with scope caveats. The middle formula sentence is long and semicolon-stacked, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 13-parameter calculator with an output schema, the description covers inputs, defaults, outputs, and limits of validity. Minor gap: it frames usage around 'an address and an asking price' while the schema also accepts a lead_id path that skips lookup, which the description doesn't mention.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining the calculation chain that gives the parameters meaning — resale minus flag discounts, closing, holding and buyer margin produce the MAO, and the opening offer is derived from it. It does not enumerate individual parameter formats (that is left to the schema, reasonably).

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 ('Runs RBSHome's offer calculator on a Dallas or Collin County parcel') and enumerates the outputs (MAO, opening offer, line-by-line math, distance from asking). It is clearly distinguishable from estimate_lot_value and comps_for_address, which supply inputs rather than a full underwriting result.

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 an explicit trigger condition: an address plus an asking price, plus a question about deal quality or what to offer. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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