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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the ranking signals (12/27-month purchases, built-after-buying, portfolio size), the privacy rule that individuals are counted but never named, the data limitation that Texas does not disclose prices, and that a parcel link is included. Only 'Read-only' merely repeats readOnlyHint, but the rest is substantive behavior an agent could not infer.

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?

The triggering condition is front-loaded and every subsequent clause carries information about inputs, ranking, or caveats. It is long for a three-parameter tool, and the closing 'Read-only' duplicates the annotations rather than earning its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it adequately covers inputs, geographic scope, ranking logic, and privacy/price caveats. It leaves unstated what happens when an address falls outside the two counties or matches no parcel.

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, but the description adds meaning: it constrains address to Dallas or Collin County, explains that lead_id skips the address lookup, and frames limit as 'best first' by describing the fit ranking. That gives context the schema fields alone do not carry.

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 ('ranks the builders and investor entities active in that ZIP by fit') and makes the output nature concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling find_likely_buyers, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 who would build on or buy a lot at a street address' gives a clear triggering condition, and it names the two accepted geographies and the lead_id shortcut. It stops short of stating when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent questions.

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