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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive closed-world lookup, so the safety profile needs no repeating. The description does add real value beyond that by disclosing data provenance (owner-occupied comes from the EPC) and defining the derived "response likelihood" field (High = listed for sale AND owner-occupied). It stops short of saying what happens with an unknown or stale akey, which is the main behavioral gap.

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 use-case framing is front-loaded and the field inventory follows in one dense sentence, so there is little wasted text. The "listed for sale" concept appears twice, once as a field and again inside the response-likelihood definition, which is slight but acceptable repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description legitimately carries the return-value burden, and it enumerates the returned fields and their derivations well. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the remaining gaps (error behaviour, freshness of listing data) are minor.

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 required parameter, and the schema already states the akey is a hex string from search_addresses. The description adds no format, sourcing or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 makes clear this returns a single home's consolidated card: address, last sale, tenure, occupancy, listings and a contact link. It is specific about the resource and its contents, but never differentiates itself from plausible siblings such as address_report, price_check or tenure_check, so an agent must infer its role from the name alone.

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?

Usage is framed implicitly through the questions it answers ("is this house for sale", "does the owner live there"), which is a reasonable signal of when to reach for it. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it and no named alternative for the overlapping sibling tools, so routing is inferred rather than directed.

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