get_transaction_heritage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds important behavioral details: TWO-STATE (returns nothing if no listing), indicative data caveat, and cost/token refund policy, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured with purpose first, then usage guidance, then caveats. Slightly verbose with the TWO-STATE explanation and disclaimer, but each sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, description completely explains output structure (per parcel: status, share, individual entries with fields), intended use case, limitations, and cost. No gaps for a getter tool.

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?

Only parameter transaction_id is fully covered by schema (100%), but description provides crucial context: it must come from a search result (search_transactions/search_by_area/search_by_polygon), adding meaning beyond the schema's format constraint.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'parcel-by-parcel heritage-listing breakdown for one transaction', differentiating it from sibling tools like search_transactions which only surface inline heritage status.

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 states when to use ('after a search when a result shows a heritage listing'), provides exclusions (search_by_polygon does not include heritage inline), and clarifies that absence of detection is not 'not listed'. Also includes cost and refund behavior.

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