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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only hints that the tool produces a location at two time points and a drift measurement in kilometers. It does not explain whether this is a read-only lookup, what output is returned, how 'founding' and 'tick' are determined, or what units/format drift takes.

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?

The description is short, but it is not efficiently structured: it uses poetic language and em-dashes rather than plain, front-loaded operational language. Important information is buried in metaphor, and the sentence does not earn its place by aiding comprehension.

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?

Given two parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation, the description is far from complete. An agent has no way to know the expected input format, the meaning of the output, error conditions, or the relationship to related tools. This is a minimal and largely unusable definition.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it does not explicitly map 'addr' or 'tick_iso'. 'tick's chained frame' obliquely references tick_iso, but 'addr' is only alluded to as 'face address'. This is insufficient for an agent to know what values to provide.

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?

The description gestures at a geolocation operation ('where a face address stands on the earth'), but uses cryptic, non-standard terms like 'face address', 'founding', and 'tick's chained frame' without defining them. It does not state a clear verb or operation such as 'returns', 'computes', or 'looks up', so an agent cannot confidently determine what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the siblings such as 'tick', 'verify_lease', or 'tell_the_house'. The description implies some relationship to ticks and parcels, but it never explains the intended use case, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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