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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description supplies the reason a nominally read-like operation is destructive: 'Exported records can consume credits.' That is real value beyond the structured fields. It still omits what the call returns (URL vs. async job) and whether the download expires.

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 the core verb-and-artifact, then defaults, then the alternate mode, then cost. No sentence is filler or a restatement of the name.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should say what an export call yields (a link, a job, an emailed file) and roughly how credits scale with limit. It covers row-shape defaults well but leaves the delivery mechanics of a downloadable export 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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including the defaults it restates. The description does add one genuinely new idea — the anchor/contact_audience interaction and which fields land in each row type — but it says nothing about limit, filters, or the many location shapes.

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 artifact ('Creates a downloadable CSV of properties or property-owner contacts') plus the scoping inputs (locations and filters). The CSV-deliverable framing implicitly separates it from sibling search/get tools, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It does explain configuration branches ('contact_audience=none or anchor=property produces property rows without contacts') and defaults, which is useful mode selection. However, it never says when to choose this export over dealmachine_property_search, dealmachine_people_search, or dealmachine_people_count, nor any prerequisite for export.

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