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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses that every line item is computed deterministically by the same engine as SENTINEL's product, that no third-party data is used, that the result is an itemized dict, and — critically — that the response carries an 'attributions' array and a professional-advice disclaimer that must be passed through to end users. That last instruction is operational guidance an agent could not derive from 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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending with the compliance-relevant passthrough instruction. The middle enumeration is long but every clause corresponds to a computed output, so little is wasted.

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 values need not be fully restated; the description still supplies the one thing the schema cannot — the obligation to surface attributions and the advice disclaimer. Combined with the county scope and determinism claim, an agent has everything needed to call and use this correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description nonetheless maps its enumerated line items onto the parameters (commission, REET, mortgage payoff, HOA/tax prorations), reinforcing which inputs drive which outputs. It does not add format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so it stays just above baseline.

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 — estimate a Washington home seller's net proceeds — and enumerates the line items included (commission, graduated REET, title/escrow/closing, payoff, prorations). This is clearly distinguishable from narrower siblings like wa_reet or wa_compare_seller_scenarios because it describes a bundled itemized net-sheet computation.

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?

Explicitly scopes use to 'what will the seller walk away with' questions on WA sales and adds a hard constraint ('WA counties only'). It does not, however, name the obvious alternatives (wa_reet for REET alone, wa_compare_seller_scenarios for side-by-side comparisons), so routing between siblings is left partly to inference.

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