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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds an important caveat that the attestation is a qualified observation rather than a stamped engineering opinion, but it does not explain whether invoking the tool schedules an engineer, creates a work order, incurs cost against budget_cap, or has any side effects.

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 concise and reasonably front-loaded, with the survey scope stated first and the attestation caveat second. The first sentence is dense, but there is little wasted text.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. It explains the survey domain but omits operational behavior, parameter guidance, expected return, scheduling implications, and cost/deadline handling.

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 0%, so the description must explain the four parameters. It provides domain context that may loosely inform the checklist, but it never mentions address, deadline, checklist structure, or budget_cap, leaving all parameter semantics undocumented.

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 identifies the resource as a technical survey and lists its domains, but it does not state the action the tool performs, such as creating, requesting, or recording a survey. It also does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like inspect_property or environment_assessment, leaving the agent to infer the intended operation.

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 contexts such as robot-deployment readiness, building systems condition, lender/board reporting, and licensed-engineer milestone work. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to the sibling inspection or assessment tools.

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