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

Discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: the exact cost model (one of 3 free sandbox analyses, or 1 credit on paid tiers), that a single PDF closing package is automatically split into constituent instruments, that multi-document submissions trigger cross-document parcel/address/party contradiction checks, and that statute citations only appear for production-mature jurisdictions. The credit consumption is consistent with readOnlyHint=false rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and returns before moving to input format, coverage scope, and billing. It is dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs; only the cost/jurisdiction details in the tail could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully enumerates the return payload (risk score 0-100 with higher-is-safer semantics, level, findings with evidence and cures, Schedule B-I, jurisdictionApplied). Input format, geographic scope limits, prerequisites, and cost are all covered, leaving nothing material for an agent to guess.

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% for the single documentsBase64 parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: it lists the accepted document types (deed, title commitment, mortgage, closing disclosure, survey, payoff letter, HOA estoppel) and clarifies that multiple PDFs may be supplied and that a bundled package PDF is handled via splitting.

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 and resource (analyzes US real estate title and closing documents) and enumerates the exact outputs: risk score and level, findings with verbatim evidence plus cure guidance, Schedule B-I requirements, and jurisdictionApplied. It is unmistakably distinct from the siblings check_coverage and get_credit_balance, which are meta/utility tools.

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 concrete operational guidance: call check_coverage to inspect per-state maturity before relying on statute citations, and call get_credit_balance first to confirm credits. It also explains that submitting multiple documents together unlocks cross-document checks. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the routing signals are clear.

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