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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: the $5.00 USD cost, that output explicitly surfaces completeness and source gaps, a provenance manifest, and interpretation boundaries. This meaningfully tells the agent what kind of result to expect; it does not, however, state payment/auth mechanics or failure behavior.

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?

A single sentence with the cost front-loaded, which is the right priority order. However, the remainder is a 40-plus-word noun-phrase pile rather than prose that distinguishes input constraints from output contents, so density substitutes for structure.

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 and the description still usefully characterizes the return package, so return values are covered. What is missing for a paid, complex aggregate is the operational envelope: whether the address must resolve to San Francisco, what happens when sources are unavailable, and how the 'machine-readable continuation calls' should be acted on.

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 4 parameters, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could be added, and it contributes nothing. Field names (address, city, state, unit) are largely self-evident, which keeps this above a 1, but there is no format, jurisdiction scope, or required-vs-optional guidance.

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'), a named deliverable ('expanded San Francisco development due-diligence evidence package') and enumerates its contents, so an agent knows this is the heavy aggregate rather than a single-source check like check_permits. It stops short of naming a sibling to differentiate against, so it is clear but not maximally disambiguating.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance. The $5.00 price is an implicit cost signal that a cheaper single-source sibling might suffice, but the agent receives no statement of the conditions that justify this tool over check_permits or property_intelligence_pack.

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