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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: a 25-match ceiling, the geographic restriction to Dallas and Collin counties, the presence of tier and score on lead matches, and the pointer to get_property. Auth or rate-limit behavior is not mentioned, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 core transformation is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by mode rules, result cap, escalation path, and geography. Every sentence carries information, though the closing 'Read-only' is largely redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 a complete input schema, a full annotation set, and an output schema that handles return values, the description covers everything an agent needs: accepted query forms, mode-specific requirements, county scope, match ceiling, and the follow-up tool for full records.

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 description coverage is 100%, so mode, limit, query, and county are already fully documented, including the 'Collin:2771234' lead ID format and the 3-letter owner minimum. The description restates those same constraints rather than adding new syntax or edge-case meaning, so it sits at the baseline for schema-complete tools.

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 transformation: street address, account number, lead ID, or owner name into RBSHome lead_ids with tier and score. It explicitly separates address mode from owner mode and names the sibling get_property for full records, so an agent can distinguish it from search, filter_properties, and get_property without opening schemas.

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 explicit per-mode conditions: address mode covers Dallas and Collin counties, owner mode requires a county plus at least 3 letters of a name. It also states when to escalate to get_property and confines use to two Texas counties, leaving no ambiguity about alternatives or prerequisites.

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