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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, it discloses stateless recheck behavior, skip semantics, the need to resend still-applicable answers, and the fact that skips suppress prompts but leave requirements unresolved. It also clarifies that answers do not verify eligibility, evidence, savings, authority, payment, or filing readiness, which is rich behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry operational guidance for a complex, stateful question flow. It is long and repeats the verification caveat near the beginning and end, so it is slightly redundant rather than maximally 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 a complex tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (research and next questions), how the question flow works, how rechecks are stateless, and what the answers do not establish. It gives an agent enough context to call and continue the interaction correctly.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds important meaning for owner_answers and skipped_question_ids: preserve explicit false and empty arrays, omit unknown or skipped fields, resend stable skips, and do not transfer answers across properties. It does not explain every nested owner_answers field, so it compensates well but not completely.

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 and resource: reviewing possible property-tax options using county records and owner answers. It also distinguishes this screening/recheck flow from a fact-only lookup and from an audit or tax-reduction route, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: ask one targeted_questions item at a time, then call recheck_property_opportunities with accumulated owner_answers and skipped_question_ids. It also names alternatives and exclusions, including reviewing opportunity_screen for audits and avoiding an unrelated intake for fact-only lookups.

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