property_intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API key requirement, monthly quota metering, and the exception for sandbox addresses. It also lists the response block categories. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but the disclosed authentication and quota context is valuable and beyond what the schema provides.

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 well-organized with a clear lead sentence, a requirements/quota paragraph, and a structured Args list. It is verbose enough to be complete, but each sentence earns its place and the structure makes it easy to scan. The parameter list is front-loaded with the most important lookup inputs.

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?

For a complex tool with 4 optional parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: full input alternatives, output component blocks, authentication requirements, quota behavior, and a pointer to a keyless sample. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even without annotations.

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 input schema has an example-less structure with no descriptions, so the schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully with an Args section explaining each parameter: address with an example, lat/lng as an alternative to address, and components with syntax ('comma-separated subset') and an explicit list of valid blocks. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Full property intelligence profile for one Australian address (or lat/lng point)' and enumerates the specific domains covered (planning, hazards, environment, transport, DAs, points of interest, risk scores). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_das or get_da, which are narrower in scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (for a complete property profile) and provides an alternative: 'No key? Use property_sample for a complete keyless example first.' It also mentions property_sandbox_addresses as an exception to quota metering, guiding the user to a no-cost path. This is explicit usage guidance with named alternatives.

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