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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing cost behavior ('spends credits', 'charges the quoted credits (never more)'), a 10-minute expiry, and single-use semantics ('run once'). These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a billable operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact ('Spends credits'), then the precondition, then the expiry/one-shot behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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, consent requirement, quote dependency, expiry and single-use behavior are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single quote_id parameter is already documented as coming from search_nyc_preforeclosures quote.quoteId. The description restates that provenance but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (returns rows) and resource (NYC preforeclosure rows) and anchors it to the quote produced by search_nyc_preforeclosures. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling quote_* tools that create the quote and the search_* tools that don't spend credits.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (must have a quote from search_nyc_preforeclosures) and an explicit consent step ('tell the user how many credits it costs and get their go-ahead'). It doesn't spell out when to prefer the national counterpart, but the routing context is otherwise unambiguous.

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