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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explaining the matching logic (same reassessment group, similar size/lot/age, same zip), the verdict branches, and the multiple_matches flow. It stops short of describing error conditions or handling of missing parameters, which would be a small addition.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides essential detail in a compact two-sentence structure. No filler words; the multi-match re-call instruction earns its place.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description does a solid job of enumerating what the tool returns and how to disambiguate multi-parcel cases. A minor gap is that with all parameters optional, the description does not state what happens when no address/zip/acct is provided, but the overall context is sufficient for normal use.

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%, so per the guideline baseline is 3. The description repeats the acct re-call behavior already captured in the schema but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the rich schema descriptions already provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fairness check for a Maryland property assessment.' It then enumerates concrete outputs (comparison group, median sales ratio, verdict branch, appeal windows), making the tool's function unambiguous even without siblings.

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?

While there are no sibling tools to contrast against, the description provides clear procedural guidance: if multiple parcels match, it returns multiple_matches and instructs the agent to re-call with acct. It also explains the recommended zip usage indirectly through the schema, but the description itself could more explicitly state when to prefer this tool over a general property lookup.

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