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

The billing model ("Costs 1 property data credit per subject found") is genuinely useful context not derivable from the annotations, and it partly explains why destructiveHint is true for what looks like a search. It does not disclose return volume per subject or pagination, so it stops short of full behavioral coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences with the capability first, then cost, then optionality. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be removed without losing 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?

For a tool with nested objects, ~23 leaf parameters at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never says how many comps come back per subject, what the default timeframe/limit is, or what the response shape looks like. An agent would have to guess at defaults and result volume.

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 0% and the criteria object alone carries roughly twenty undocumented fields (tolerances, sort_by, include_active_listings, etc.) whose semantics and defaults the description does not supply. The only added meaning is that location and criteria are optional with defaults; the description does not explain what a "subject" versus a returned comp is or what the default limit is.

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: "Find comparable sales + active listings" and bounds the scope to "up to 25 subject properties." An agent can tell this is a comps lookup rather than a general search, though it never names the sibling it supersedes (e.g., dealmachine_property_search vs dealmachine_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?

"Location/criteria optional (sensible defaults)" tells the agent it may call with property_ids alone, which is real usage guidance, and the credit cost hints at a caution before bulk calls. But there is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use framing against the many other property tools, and no prerequisite or exclusion stated.

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