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

Adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot express: it spends 1 credit, is free when the workspace already pulled the record, and requires informing the user first. This also explains why readOnlyHint=false despite being a retrieval, resolving what would otherwise look like an odd annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: cost, payload, scope, and provenance/consent. Cost and payload are front-loaded so an agent reading only the first line still knows the essentials.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Cost, caching, scope, id provenance, and the user-notification requirement are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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% and the single id parameter is documented in the schema itself ('The id of a row from search_nyc_preforeclosures'). The description repeats the same provenance hint rather than adding format, length, or validity details, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the full record for one NYC preforeclosure') and enumerates the payload (case/index number, stage, lender, amounts, mortgage, owner, building facts). It is clearly separable from the sibling search_nyc_preforeclosures, which produces the id this tool consumes.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the correct source of input ('take the id from search_nyc_preforeclosures') and scopes the tool ('NYC preforeclosures only'). It also adds a consent precondition ('Tell the user it costs 1 credit before calling'), but gives no guidance on when this tool should be preferred over other per-record siblings such as get_nyc_property or unlock_nyc_property_report.

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