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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it consumes credits, requires explicit user approval via confirmed=true, returns the closest match within a 300-foot radius, and is never retried automatically. That retry and credit disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs and the annotations don't convey. It stops short of saying what the 300-foot radius miss returns or what the property payload contains.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the operational caveats. The opening 'Reverse geocode.' repeats the title and is mildly redundant, but nothing else wastes space.

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 two-parameter, credit-consuming tool with rich annotations and a fully described nested schema, the description covers purpose, the key return fact (closest property within 300 feet), credit/approval requirements, and retry behavior. The main remaining gaps are the absence of output-detail guidance and the missing differentiation from the overlapping enrich_latlng sibling.

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 50%, with the nested body object (coordinate array with min/max items, fields, contact_audience credit semantics) documented reasonably well in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the parameters — not the 250-coordinate cap, not the fields use case, not the contact_audience credit tradeoff. Adequate only because the schema carries the load.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Look up properties by latitude/longitude coordinates' with the added constraint that it returns the closest property within 300 feet. An agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling dealmachine_enrich_latlng, which appears to serve the same reverse-geocoding purpose.

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?

Gives one real usage prerequisite — user approval and confirmed=true are required for credit use — but never states when to pick this over dealmachine_enrich_latlng, dealmachine_enrich_address, or dealmachine_property_search. The when-to-use is implied by the tool's name rather than explained.

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