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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the return data (sale dates, prices, deed types, buyer/seller details) and the data source (public deed records via ATTOM). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentence with embedded example queries, immediately conveying purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers the core functionality and return types. It could mention that it only works for US properties (implicit in ATTOM data) or that a valid address is required, but it is largely complete for this API tool.

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%, and the description mentions 'by address', which aligns with the two address parameters. However, the description does not add new meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format of address). Baseline of 3 is 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 starts with example queries like 'When was [house] last sold' and explicitly states it returns 'complete sales/transaction history for a US property by address' including specific data points (sale dates, prices, deed types, buyer/seller details). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like attom_assessment or attom_avm.

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 implies usage through example queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like attom_assessment or attom_property_detail. No direct comparison or exclusions are provided, relying on the tool name and examples to guide selection.

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