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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them by listing the entire underwriting model (75% LTV at 11% plus 2 points, 2% buy closing, 7% sale costs, $1,000/mo carry, 5-month minimum hold, 12% profit-on-cost target) and disclosing that the response is a free verdict plus a paywalled-report link rather than the max price.

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?

Front-loaded with the verdict framing and the 'not the max price, a link' caveat, then the assumptions and input guidance. The single dense paragraph is long, especially the parenthetical assumptions list, but every clause carries information; slight loss for density over segmentation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully: it states the return values (one of four verdicts plus a report link) and enumerates the exact deal assumptions behind the math. For a 10-param, annotation-rich tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 the schema baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the alternative input paths (exit_value vs annual_noi + cap_rate) and notes the $1,000 carry default 'unless given' and the 5-month minimum hold, which reinforce rather than repeat 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?

Names the specific verb (deal check) and resource (OKC small-commercial flip) and enumerates the four possible verdicts, so the agent knows exactly what output shape to expect. It is not a tautology and the scope (OKC hard-money terms) is explicit.

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?

Says to supply exit_value, or annual_noi with cap_rate, and clearly bounds the tool: it does not return the max modeled price, only a link to the full paid report. That is a clear use/scope boundary, though there are no siblings and no explicit 'do not use when' framing beyond the report upsell.

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