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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the analytical stance (no auto-recommendation, no closing prediction) and mandates pass-through of the 'attributions' array and professional-advice disclaimer — the kind of downstream obligation an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its inputs, followed by behavioral guardrails and the output obligation. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct load.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is largely unnecessary, and the description correctly flags the attributions/disclaimer pass-through. However, for a computation tool with six top-level parameters at 17% schema coverage, the absence of any guidance on county, HOA flag, or multi-offer limits leaves real gaps.

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 only 17%, so the description carries a heavier burden. It maps conceptually onto concessions, financing_type and contingencies and gestures at seller proceeds (implying mortgageBalance, commissionRate, propertyTaxProration), but never explains county, hasHoa, earnest_money, or the 2–5 offer cardinality constraint.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Compare buyer offers") and enumerates the comparison basis: seller proceeds, concessions, financing and contingency terms. It is readily distinguishable from wa_compare_seller_scenarios by scope, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

The description sets useful interpretive limits — do not treat highest price as an automatic recommendation, do not predict closing — which tells the agent how to frame the output. But it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not and does not route to any alternative (e.g. wa_compare_seller_scenarios or wa_net_sheet) despite 16 siblings.

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