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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: the $500 minimum, return cap of 100 matches, dated source details, and a free official claim link. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and zero waste. The scope threshold and return details each earn their place by adding information not in the schema.

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, the description partially covers return values (up to 100 matches, dated source details, claim link). However, it omits authentication requirements and does not fully explain the return payload or error cases. For a simple lookup tool, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description only repeats the optional filters (city, ZIP, minimum balance) without adding syntax, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (look up), resource (California unclaimed property), and scope (by owner name, optionally narrowed). It is clear enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool does. No similar sibling tools exist, so sibling differentiation is unnecessary.

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 implies usage by describing the search inputs and a coverage threshold ($500+), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. With no sibling alternatives in this domain, the context is sufficient but not explicit guidance.

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