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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which the description usefully nuances: it 'creates a private FairPath audit record but does not... change an external system.' This clarifies the non-read-only side effect and the read-only boundary with respect to external systems — genuinely valuable context beyond what annotations convey. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on invalid countyId, but the output schema and idempotentHint=false cover part of this.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the side-effect disclosure follows naturally in the second sentence. 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?

Given an output schema exists and the tool is a single-parameter lookup, the description covers the essential ground: what it returns, the audit side effect, and the non-mutating external behavior. The only notable gap is sibling differentiation (when to choose this over the other FairPath tools), which slightly reduces completeness.

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% — countyId is documented with examples ('harris_tx or collin_tx'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Return') and resource ('county property-tax filing guidance and source metadata'), making the tool's function clear. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings (county requirements vs. check property vs. explain evidence packet), though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions that would help an agent choose between fairpath_get_county_requirements, fairpath_check_property, and fairpath_explain_evidence_packet.

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