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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it thoroughly. It discloses the return components (risk score range and direction, findings with evidence and cures, Schedule B-I extraction), input handling (PDFs, single closing package splitting), cross-document checks, cost/credit implications, and the Florida-only scope. Nothing contradicts the absent annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and output, then adding input requirements, scope restrictions, and prerequisites. Every sentence provides useful operational information; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the lack of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, what inputs it accepts, what its limitations are, what it costs, and which sibling tools to call first. An agent has enough context to decide whether and how to invoke it 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?

Although the schema's description of documentsBase64 already explains it as one or more base64 PDF strings, the tool description adds meaningful semantic detail: accepted document types, the ability to include a full closing package, that the package will be split into constituent instruments, and that multiple documents enable cross-document contradiction checks. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Analyzes'), a clear resource ('Florida real estate title documents'), and a distinct deliverable ('structured risk report' with risk score, findings, and Schedule B-I requirements). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling tools check_coverage and get_credit_balance by describing a document-analysis operation rather than a scope check or balance lookup.

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?

The description gives explicit conditions on when to use the tool: Florida properties only, with prerequisites stated directly ('call check_coverage first to confirm scope, and get_credit_balance to confirm available credits'). It also explains when multi-document submission is beneficial, giving an agent concrete decision guidance.

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