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

Annotations declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds context annotations cannot carry: a $2.95 charge, that billing is gated so unsupported/held jurisdictions fail before payment, and that repeat-polling is guided via check_property_changes.

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-loads price, then purpose, then the alternative and the failure condition in three sentences with no filler. The middle sentence is a dense enumeration, but every clause carries distinct information.

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 documentation is not required, and the description covers pricing, failure semantics, alternative selection, and follow-up polling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents city, unit, state, and address. The description adds jurisdiction context (San Francisco / California) but no syntax or routing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Build') plus resource ('deepest released San Francisco development evidence package') and enumerates the package contents (chronology, attention items, completeness, source gaps, provenance). It explicitly names the sibling build_property_intelligence_pack as the lighter alternative, so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Use this for development due diligence') tied to a named alternative with its own selection condition ('a lighter current snapshot'). It also states a precondition failure mode ('Unsupported or held jurisdictions fail before payment'), leaving no inference needed.

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