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

Annotations mark this non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is partly covered, and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the $0.25 charge and the guarantee that unsupported jurisdictions fail before payment. It stops short of describing auth requirements or what 'held' means operationally, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the price so the agent sees the cost implication first, then purpose, then the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the description covers cost, failure behavior, and the alternative tool. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify the meaning of 'released' versus 'held' jurisdictions or expected latency, but it is sufficient to invoke 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 all four parameters (address, city, unit, state) are already documented in the schema, including the California-only jurisdiction note. The description adds no format or syntax guidance beyond that, 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 ('reconcile') and resource ('released code-enforcement and complaint records') scoped to one property, and explicitly distinguishes itself from build_property_intelligence_pack. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit alternative ('use build_property_intelligence_pack for a broader package') with the condition that selects it, and adds a routing constraint that unsupported/held jurisdictions fail before payment. Nothing about when to pick this tool is left to inference.

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