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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description corroborates the write/charge profile by disclosing a $0.25 cost and the billing boundary (jurisdiction failures occur before payment). That is real value beyond the annotations, though it stops short of covering repeat-call cost behavior or whether a held jurisdiction can later be retried.

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?

Four short sentences with the price front-loaded and the decision rule immediately after the capability statement. Slightly dense jargon ('broad released multi-source property package', 'repeat-poll guidance') costs a little readability, but nothing is redundant.

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 unnecessary; the description instead covers cost, jurisdiction gating, and sibling selection. The one remaining gap is what happens on repeat calls or partial-source coverage, but that is minor for a well-annotated paid tool.

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% and every parameter is documented inline, including the California-only jurisdiction constraint on 'state', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no address-format or disambiguation detail beyond what the schema fields already say.

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?

Specific verb ('Build') plus a precisely scoped resource ('broad released multi-source property package') and an enumeration of what the package contains (completeness, source gaps, provenance, repeat-poll guidance). It also names the sibling family it differs from ('focused check_* tools'), so an agent can place it without opening another schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use this for a comprehensive current property view; use focused check_* tools when only one evidence class is needed.' It also states a precondition failure mode ('Unsupported or held jurisdictions fail before payment'), which is actionable guidance rather than boilerplate.

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