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

Annotations already disclose the read-only, idempotent, and open-world nature of the call. The description adds only the detail that each score comes with a description, plus the 'home's location' scope. There is no contradiction and no need to restate safety traits, but no extra behavioral context such as data sources or missing-data behavior is provided.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the three score types and ending with the relevant scope. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and every phrase earns its place.

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 lookup with one required parameter and no output schema, the description conveys what the agent gets (three scores plus descriptions). It does not specify score ranges or how missing scores are handled, but those are minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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 fully documents zpid and expand. The description adds no real parameter meaning beyond clarifying the scores are for a home's location, which is a modest extension of the schema's 'Zillow property id.'

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 clearly names the resource (Walk Score, Transit Score, Bike Score) and ties it to a home's location, which separates it from most sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves,' so it reads as a noun phrase rather than a full operational statement.

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 phrase 'for a home's location' gives some context: the tool is appropriate when the agent already has a home or zpid and wants neighborhood mobility scores. It does not state when to prefer this over related Zillow tools or mention any exclusions, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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