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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context the annotations do not: it is a non-parameterized orientation call that also surfaces usage terms and query tips, telling the agent this is a policy-and-context read, not a data read. Return format is not described, but with no output schema that is the only notable gap.

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?

"Start here" is front-loaded as an imperative, followed by a single dense sentence enumerating the covered content. Every listed item (counts, history depth, field coverage, sources, bulk files, tips, terms) is distinct and actionable, though the run-on enumeration could be grouped for faster scanning.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so comprehensively across coverage, provenance, and terms. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call this first is 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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing or misleading on this dimension.

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?

"Describes what data exists" names a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration (totals, county parcel/ownership counts, history depth, populated fields, sources, bulk files) makes the tool unmistakable against the query-oriented siblings like get_property or search_properties. An agent can tell this is the metadata/orientation tool 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?

"Start here" gives explicit ordering guidance that positions this tool ahead of the sibling query tools, and the reference to "query tips and usage terms" implies it should be consulted before constructing queries. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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