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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that answers never establish eligibility, verified evidence, savings, owner authority, payment or filing readiness, and it warns against sending exact income, ages, identifiers, documents or a caller-supplied audit. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or whether submitted owner_answers are persisted, which is the main remaining gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with the scope front-loaded and the disclaimer and privacy constraint following. 'A few owner-reported categories' is the one phrase that is vague rather than economical, but nothing is padded.

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, so the description should describe what comes back; 'research and next questions' plus the explicit limitation list is helpful but the return shape is unstated. For a tool with a 15-property nested input, the description covers the safety framing far better than it covers how to assemble the payload.

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 33%: only county_key is documented, while address_or_pidn and the 15-field nested owner_answers object have no field-level descriptions. The description partially compensates by telling the caller to supply category/requirement-style answers rather than exact income or ages, but it never explains what owner_answers fields mean or what 'pidn' is.

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 ('Recheck') and resource ('possible tax-reduction routes') against 'current retained property records' plus owner-reported categories, which differentiates it from the many audit_* siblings that target a single named program. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the boundary is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'Recheck' implies the tool is used when re-running existing records with fresh owner answers, and the description says it 'Returns research and next questions' rather than a determination. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus check_eligibility or audit_senior_tax_freeze; the only hard guidance offered is an input prohibition.

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