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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — a $0.25 USD charge per call — but says nothing about latency, data sources queried, or coverage limits, which matter for an open-world lookup.

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 short sentences with the cost front-loaded, so the agent sees the price before committing. No padding, though the extreme brevity is part of what leaves other dimensions underspecified.

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 described, but for a paid, open-world property lookup with four undocumented parameters, the description omits jurisdiction prerequisites, expected inputs, and any note about result coverage or confidence.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It implies an address is the anchor but never explains the address/city/state/unit relationship, formatting expectations, or whether city/state are required for accurate matching.

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 ('planning applications and entitlement activity') scoped to 'a property'. This is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like check_permits or check_zoning_context, though 'reconcile' is a slightly fuzzy operation and the description never explains what reconciled output looks like.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions distinguishing it from localproof.check_permits, check_zoning_context, or development_due_diligence. The only guidance offered is the price, which tells the agent nothing about when this tool is the right choice.

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