Explain Property checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that supplying tokenId triggers an additional pass-count in the response, the upper bound of 75342, and an explicit statement that results are not authoritative for title purposes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then the digit legend, then the tokenId behavior, then the disclaimer — a sensible order. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical about the old name is arguably trimmable.

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 and no required parameters, the description carries the burden and mostly does: it explains the encoding, the optional lookup behavior, and the conditional pass-count in the response. It stops short of describing the response shape when only a score is supplied.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by decoding the score's positional structure (ten-thousands = recovery status, thousands = past title, hundreds = ownership, tens = onchain history, ones = basic validation) and clarifying that each digit is a category value, not a count, plus the 75342 ceiling that the schema's generic maximum obscures.

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 — explain a property's Property checks from its numeric encoding — and immediately disambiguates the name from what it decodes ('formerly called the confidence score; the tool name keeps it'). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 implied: pass a numeric score to decode it, or a tokenId to have it looked up and counted. The closing disclaimer ('a starting point for your own research, not a title search or title insurance') sets expectations but is not a when-to-use-vs-alternative rule and names no sibling tool.

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