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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: paywall gating (first 5 rows then locked.count/by_type), what is never returned (contact values, decision-maker names), and that every answer reports withholding in entitlement/locked. This is exactly the value-added disclosure annotations cannot express.

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 with the core purpose, but the body is a dense run-on enumerating every returned field, and the trailing sales CTA ('7 days free at...') is promotional rather than functional. Several clauses could be trimmed without losing agent-relevant information.

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 correctly carries the return-shape burden by enumerating record fields, record classes, and the changed_since alternative output. Access/entitlement behavior is covered. It is nearly complete, though the sparse parameter coverage leaves view/limit semantics partly unaddressed.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for changed_since ('return change alerts observed on or after this date'), but view/tag/state largely restate enum values already in the schema, and limit is undocumented in the description. Partial compensation, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (search official state records of pending skilled-nursing ownership/operator changes) and scopes it to five named states. Explicitly excludes predictions, so the agent knows this is a records lookup, not a forecast, and can distinguish it from sibling search_signal/opportunity tools.

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?

Clearly frames when the tool applies (pre-effective ownership changes, real state filings) and offers an alternative mode via changed_since for 'what changed' queries. It does not explicitly route to a named alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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