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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: default inclusion of owner contacts, a hard 25-record cap, the paid-access prerequisite, per-contact credit consumption, and free repeats within the same cycle. The credit-cost disclosure is especially valuable given destructiveHint=true on what is otherwise a read-shaped tool. It stops short of describing what a partial/missing ID does or the shape of the response beyond field names.

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 payload and cap, then the opt-out flag, then prerequisites and cost. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is redundant.

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 and three parameters, the description covers the returned entities, default fields, batch limit, auth requirement and billing model adequately. The remaining hole is the undocumented `enrich` flag and the absence of any note on behavior when an ID is invalid or not found.

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 33%, and the description compensates partially: it marks `ids` as required and bounded at 25, and explains that `contact_audience` defaults to owners with `none` yielding zero-credit property-only data. The `enrich` boolean is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a genuine gap.

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 (returns properties by DealMachine property ID), plus the batch ceiling of 25 and the default payload (owners with names, phones, emails). This clearly separates it from siblings like dealmachine_property_get (single ID) and dealmachine_property_search (criteria-based).

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 a concrete selection rule for the main variant: `contact_audience=none` for property-only data, and warns that a connected account with paid access is prerequisite. It does not explicitly route callers to dealmachine_property_get for a single ID or to dealmachine_property_search for discovery, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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