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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the street address is withheld until the site publishes it, with the reasoning that estate sales are often at private homes. This is a specific behavioral nuance not captured by annotations, adding real value 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?

Two sentences, the first front-loads the complete list of returned data, the second covers the address delay behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler, and the structure makes scanning easy.

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 single-parameter read operation with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers the full return payload and a significant timing caveat (address availability). It is complete for an agent to decide whether and how to call it; missing error-handling details are negligible given the simple input.

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% for the single parameter (sale_id), including the type and an example. The tool description merely restates 'by sale ID' without adding new semantic details (e.g., format, ranges, or edge cases). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation fully.

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 clearly states a specific verb-resource pair ('One EstateSales.NET sale in full, by sale ID') and enumerates the exact contents (name, description, terms, sale type, dates, coordinates, picture count, company/seller info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like estatesales_search (search) and estatesales_companies (companies) without ambiguity.

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 when you already have a sale ID, and the schema notes the ID comes from estatesales_search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. It provides context but lacks explicit exclusions or routing guidance, so it meets the minimum but no more.

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