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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real substance: deed-date provenance, the ranking rules (county purchase count then nearby purchases), the 3-purchase cap per buyer, and explicit data limitations (no cash indicator, no prices, individuals excluded). It stops short of describing auth or rate behavior, but for a read-only lookup the disclosure is strong.

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?

Single dense paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by ranking, pagination, and caveats in a sensible order. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the long compound opening sentence would read better split.

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 still covers provenance, ranking, per-buyer limits, pagination signals, and the key data gaps (no cash flag, no prices, no individuals). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the 25-per-page size and the lead_id format. The description reinforces pagination behavior ('pass page for the next ones') and mentions total/has_more, but adds little parameter meaning the schema does not already carry, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and a precisely scoped resource: entities that bought property within 0.5 miles of a Dallas/Collin lead in the last 24 months, sourced from appraisal-district deed dates. The scope itself separates it from siblings like find_likely_buyers or find_entity_owner, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

The context of use is implied clearly (find who has been buying near a specific lead), and pagination guidance ('pass page for the next ones') is given. There is no explicit when-to-use versus find_likely_buyers or find_owner_portfolio, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions beyond 'individual buyers are left out'.

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