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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses authoritative external data sources and the quantification logic, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions or costs are involved, or what side effects, if any, occur.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler and includes the key domain-specific details. It is dense but appropriately sized for a specialized audit tool, though it could be slightly easier to scan with a little structural separation.

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 complex audit purpose, rich input schema, and absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the tool analyzes but not what the returned audit contains. An agent can identify the tool, but the description leaves gaps around output shape and operational behavior.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond indirectly referencing Exhibit T, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Audit a parcel against ... topography') and names the exact impairments quantified: steep slope >25% grade and sinkhole land impairments. It also differentiates itself from sibling parcel audits by focusing on USGS 3DEP LiDAR and karst subsidence data rather than soil, flood, blight, or valuation checks.

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 provides a clear use context: producing Board-admissible adverse topography adjustments (Exhibit T). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling audits, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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