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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that a failing source is 'noted, not fatal,' that the parcel record is 'best-effort,' and that it is a public-record screen via ECHO/FRS. This gives the agent realistic expectations about completeness and partial data without contradicting annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with purpose, followed by disambiguation, output contract, and caveats. It is slightly long and ends with the promotional 'Premium cross-source synthesis' tagline, which adds little functional guidance, but the rest is information-dense.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the exact verdict-band values, the flagged data categories, and the evidence returned. Combined with the optional state/address parameters for disambiguation, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret its result appropriately.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the tool targets a 'specific site or operator' but adds no new parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific resource and intent: 'environmental-compliance and contamination liability read for a SPECIFIC site or operator' and names the exact output (verdict band, flags, evidence). It also differentiates itself from location_risk_report, so an agent can tell which tool answers a compliance/contamination question versus a natural-hazard screen.

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 states when to use it ('the question a buyer, lender, or Phase-I ESA asks before a deal') and when not to ('not a Phase-I Environmental Site Assessment or a substitute for one'). It explicitly names the closest alternative, location_risk_report, and explains the depth distinction.

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