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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not disclose whether this tool is read-only or produces/records an exclusion filing, what permissions or documentation are required, whether results are persisted, or what happens on ineligible cases. The only behavioral signal is the word 'Audit', which implies analysis, but 'format' implies a possible write — the ambiguity is unresolved.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is heavily compressed statutory jargon packed into one clause, making the actual action harder to parse than necessary. No structural headings or sentence breaks for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 9-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description omits what the tool returns (an eligibility determination? a formatted exclusion document? a tax savings figure?), how the statutory tests are applied, and what happens with the optional inputs. The legal citation alone does not give an agent enough to call this confidently.

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 every parameter (parcel_id, has_sah_or_sha_grant, va_disability_percentage, accessibility_improvements_cost, county_tax_rate, etc.) is already documented. The description adds only the statutory framework that gives those inputs meaning; it does not explain defaults, units, or how optional parameters change the computation. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (SAH / ADA accessibility assessment exclusion) and the two governing statutes (38 U.S.C. § 2101, T.C.A. § 67-5-601), plus the intended effect (excise mobility improvements from residential assessment). That is enough to distinguish it from neighbors like audit_disabled_veteran_relief or verify_va_disability_exemption. The compound verb 'Audit eligibility and format' is ambiguous, however — it is unclear whether 'format' means producing a filing document or normalizing data.

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 statement of when to choose this tool versus the many sibling relief/eligibility audits (audit_disabled_homeowner_relief, audit_disabled_veteran_relief, audit_combat_deployment_abatement, verify_va_disability_exemption). Usage is only inferable from the statutory citations and the phrase 'excise medically necessary mobility improvements' — no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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