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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, non-idempotent and not readOnly; the description adds key context that enrichment credits are consumed per record and that property_ids creates/links owner records. It does not explain partial-failure behavior or irreversibility beyond the destructive annotation, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 description is short and front-loaded with purpose, then bullets for mode selection, then the cost/approval constraint. Every sentence serves selection or safety.

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 costly, destructive, no-output-schema mutation, it covers the critical preconditions (credit cost, billing check, explicit confirm) and the two input modes. It omits return/result expectations and the mutual-exclusivity or at-least-one rule for property_ids and owner_ids, which are material but not fatal gaps.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining that property_ids creates/links owner records while owner_ids refreshes existing contacts, beyond the schema's shorter parameter descriptions. It does not clarify whether both arrays may be supplied together or that the schema requires neither, but it improves semantics.

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 the action (skip tracing/enrichment) and the concrete outputs (phones, emails, mailing addresses), and it separates the property_ids and owner_ids paths. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as spur_find_owners or spur_get_owner, so an agent must infer that this is the paid enrichment step rather than discovery.

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?

It gives the selection rule for each mode: property_ids for saved properties and owner_ids for existing owners, plus a required pre-call approval flow and billing check. It lacks explicit exclusions or a clear statement of whether a discovery tool should be called first, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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