Everything DFX holds about one property or parcel

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a behavioral/data nuance: sales carry BOTH the instrument total and the parcel's allocated share because a deed repeats its full price on every parcel. This transparency about how output is computed goes beyond the annotations, though it does not mention side effects (which are already covered).

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 a single sentence followed by a clarifying sentence. It packs a lot of information (list of data components) without excessive verbosity. The structure is logical: first the main action and data items, then a specific nuance about sales consideration. No redundant words.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description serves as the sole explanation of the return data. It enumerates all major components: current state, dated events, relationships, debt details, sales records with registry info, and provenance. It also explains the sales allocation nuance. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect from the tool in a single-property context.

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?

The only parameter 'dfx_id' has a clear description: 'id returned by resolve_address'. This explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the value, covering 100% of schema parameters. Since there is only one parameter and no enums or nested objects, the semantics are fully specified.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: given a DFX id from resolve_address, it returns a comprehensive record including current state, dated events, ownership/management relationships, debt details, recorded sales with consideration and registry book/page, and provenance. The title 'Everything DFX holds about one property or parcel' reinforces the singular comprehensive nature. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides a usage prerequisite: the DFX id must come from resolve_address. It also states 'Free.' at the end, indicating no cost. While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_property_events, the title and 'Given a DFX id' imply this is the tool for a single property's full record. The clarification about sales allocation also guides interpretation of output, which is part of usage.

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