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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that only source-checked answers are filled in and that missing coverage is reported as unassessed, never asserted, but it does not cover read-only status, error behavior, or authentication needs.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, front-loading the scope and then the answer-handling rule. Every sentence adds useful 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the output behavior reasonably well: 20 questions, source-checked answers, and unassessed gaps. It remains incomplete on input semantics and operational details, so an agent cannot fully infer usage.

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?

The schema has one required property_id with 0% description coverage, and the description only implies 'one home' without naming or explaining the identifier. It does not compensate for the missing schema semantics.

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?

The description identifies a specific resource: 20 rural buyer due-diligence questions for one home, with source-checked answers. It is more specific than a generic home lookup, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings such as get_home or search_homes. The phrase 'for one home' implies a single-property lookup, but the agent must infer when this tool is preferred.

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