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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), so the description carries the rest and does it well: it discloses the required Intelligence subscription, the exact failure mode ('fails with a plan error if the signed-in account has no Intelligence subscription'), and the Cotlet API key requirement. These are meaningful runtime behaviors an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded and informative, but repetitive: sale price and sale date appear in the first sentence and again in the 'Each comp includes' sentence, and the subscription requirement is stated twice ('Needs an Intelligence subscription' and 'fails with a plan error if the signed-in account has no Intelligence subscription'). The redundancy dilutes an otherwise tight block.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload, the location-scoped query, and the entitlement/auth failure path, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, though the cursor parameter in the schema partially covers that.

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 location, limit, cursor, sold_after and property_type. The description adds only the loose notion of searching 'around a location' and dates, adding no syntax or value detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource: 'Searches the sales comps in Crexi Intelligence around a location', and enumerates the returned fields (asking price, sale price, cap rate, address, square footage, brokers). This is clearly distinct from the other crexi_* tools (list_leads, get_listing, list_my_listings), which are listing/lead oriented rather than comps.

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?

Provides prerequisites ('Needs an Intelligence subscription', 'Needs the user's Cotlet API key'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed, but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or what question it answers. Usage is only implied by 'search the sales comps around a location'.

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