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

Annotations are all 'false', which is low-information, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well: it reveals the side effect of creating a private audit record and scopes what it does not affect (no external system changes, no recommendations or predictions). This adds genuine context beyond the annotations and shows no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false (creating a record is not read-only).

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 with the purpose front-loaded in the first and the boundary conditions in the second. Zero wasted words; every clause 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?

With no parameters and an output schema present (which covers return-value details), the description adequately covers purpose and side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly appears missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to document or compensate for in the schema, and no parameter gap exists.

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 ('Explain') and a specific resource ('evidence categories FairPath can organize into a homeowner-reviewed property-tax evidence packet'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings fairpath_check_property and fairpath_get_county_requirements, which perform different operations on different resources.

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 provides scope exclusions ('does not recommend a filing position, predict an outcome, or change an external system'), which tell an agent what this tool is not for. However, it never explicitly states when to use it or routes to the sibling tools for the excluded needs, so usage guidance is mostly implied through negative space.

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