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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: permit years 1901–1930, directory-year residents with source pages, names only through 1945, census data as counts rather than names, and explicit marking of inferred data. It does not cover error behavior for uncovered addresses, but the data limitations are unusually well disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause carries substantive information about the returned history. It is a single long run-on sentence, however, so the dense enumeration of output categories could be structured more readably.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returned content, and it does so thoroughly: permits, map evidence, current building, directory residents, and census aggregates. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits sibling-tool routing and does not explain behavior for addresses outside the covered set.

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?

The single `address` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including accepted formats such as street address, AddressLore path, and URL. The description does not add syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the high schema coverage makes 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the history of a covered Vancouver house, including build year, permits, fire-insurance-map evidence, current building, directory residents, and 1921 census counts. It is far more specific than the title alone, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings `find_house` and `coverage`.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'covered Vancouver house' and the historical-data scope, so an agent can infer this is the tool for house-history lookups. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to `find_house` or `coverage` for address resolution or coverage checks.

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