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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavioral context. The parenthetical '$0.005 USDC' appears to disclose a cost or fee, but it is ambiguous because it is attached to 'annual tax estimates' and is not explicitly labeled as a fee. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses full marks only because the parenthetical '$0.005 USDC' is ambiguous and could be clearer as a labeled fee or cost note.

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 and three fully documented required parameters, the definition is mostly complete for a straightforward read-only estimator. The remaining gaps are the lack of sibling differentiation and the unclear fee/cost parenthetical.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters fully. The description adds context by tying squareFeet and zipCode to comps and tax estimates, but it does not meaningfully go beyond the schema.

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 clear action ('Generates') and specific deliverables: market valuations, price-per-sqft comps, and annual tax estimates. It is not a tautology and is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling real_estate_calculator.

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 output list implies the tool is for property valuation and tax-estimation tasks, and the required inputs (zipCode, squareFeet, bedrooms) reinforce that context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as real_estate_calculator, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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