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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context annotations cannot express: results are only property reported at $500 and up, which tells the agent that a null result does not mean 'no property exists' below that floor. It also previews the return payload (dated source details plus the free official claim link).

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core capability and its scope front-loaded before the return-shape sentence. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 correctly takes on the job of explaining what comes back: matches with source details and the official claim link. Combined with the $500 coverage floor, that is nearly complete. The one meaningful gap is that name-matching behavior (exact vs. partial/fuzzy) is never stated, which affects how an agent should phrase the required 'name' parameter.

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 the schema already documents zip, city, name, limit, min_balance, and jurisdiction. The description reinforces three of the five optional filters and the up-to-100 cap, but adds no format or matching-semantics detail beyond the structured fields. 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Look up California unclaimed property') and bounds it by jurisdiction, coverage threshold ($500 and up), and result cap. No sibling tool overlaps this domain, so an agent can place it immediately without opening the schema.

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 makes the lookup context clear: an owner name is the anchor, with city, ZIP, and minimum balance as optional narrowing. It does not state exclusions or a 'use X instead' path, but no sibling tool offers an alternative, so nothing is left genuinely ambiguous.

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