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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: a DPPA/GLBA permissible-use legal warning and the requirement for a BatchData API token via _apiKey. It does not contradict annotations and adds unique non-obvious obligations.

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 two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the legal warning and a concrete usage example. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the example adds length; overall it is well-structured and concise.

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 an 8-parameter tool with only 1 required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It includes a legal warning, API key requirement, and an example. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the purpose implies contact info, and the absence of an output schema reduces the burden. The description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters, including the optional owner name for accuracy. The description provides an example call, but this is also present in the schema examples. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so baseline 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 states a specific verb (skip-trace) and resource (address) with the goal of resolving owner contact info (phones/emails). It clearly distinguishes from property lookup tools like batchdata_property_lookup by focusing on contact resolution.

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 gives clear context on when to use (skip-tracing an address for contact info) and mentions optional owner name to improve accuracy, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. It lacks direct sibling differentiation or exclusions.

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