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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return payload ('the answer, the sources, a map link and a printable brief link') and the required input method. It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or data freshness, but those are less critical for a read-only query 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?

The description is front-loaded with the usage condition and then efficiently states input and output expectations. It is somewhat long due to the topic list, but every sentence contributes relevant information and there is no filler.

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?

For a 7-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, required input forms, and expected returns. It omits explicit sibling routing and does not mention that city is required, but the schema and annotations fill those gaps sufficiently.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description only reiterates that an address or latitude/longitude can be given; it does not add meaning for city, homestead, property_class, or appraised_value beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

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 clearly states the resource and scope: answering what can be done with a specific property or address in Austin or Nashville, listing zoning, capacity, short-term rental, tax, and flood risk. It is specific and not tautological. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from its siblings find_land and search_businesses, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It opens with explicit usage context: 'Use when someone asks what they can do with a specific property or address...' and tells the agent to provide an address or latitude/longitude. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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