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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description is free to spend its words elsewhere — and it does: it discloses the CAD-based data provenance and the crucial caveat that Texas does not disclose sale prices, so results are a range rather than an appraisal or sale price. 'Counts as a property lookup' is a genuinely useful quota/metering signal that appears nowhere in the structured fields, and the RBSHome parcel link tells the agent what actionable artifact accompanies the result.

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 trigger condition, then scope, then outputs, then the caveat — a sensible order for an agent scanning quickly. Every clause carries information, though the output enumeration is dense enough that it approaches the length where the output schema would serve better.

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 two-parameter tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies everything the agent needs to decide to call it: input scope, what the numbers mean, why they are a range, and what counts against quota. The only omission is a cross-reference to the sibling valuation tools, which is a routing nicety rather than a completeness gap.

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% and both parameter descriptions are already detailed (address format example, lead_id pattern and 'skips the address lookup'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'address (or a lead_id)' restates the either-or relationship implied by zero required parameters but adds no format, precedence, or error-handling detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is the right level here.

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?

The description names a specific verb-and-resource pairing ('land comps' for a parcel at an address) and enumerates what comes back: appraisal-district values, same-ZIP same-use comps, $/sqft and $/acre quartiles, transfers, and an implied range. It is clearly a valuation-lookup tool rather than a search or ownership tool. It stops short of naming the near-sibling estimate_lot_value, so the agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list alone.

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?

'Use when someone asks what a lot or land at a street address is worth, or for comps' gives an explicit triggering intent, and the county constraint (Dallas or Collin, Texas) bounds applicability. There is no when-not guidance — nothing tells the agent to prefer estimate_lot_value or analyze_deal in the overlapping case of estimating a lot's value.

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