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 behavior beyond annotations: results are historical and newest first, include current ownership status, acquisition date, price, summary counts, and mailing-address grouping of LLCs and trusts. It does not fully describe the response shape or pagination behavior, but pagination is covered by the schema.

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 three tightly written sentences with the core resource and ordering front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information about scope, returned attributes, and mailing-address grouping, with 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 six-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description covers purpose, historical scope, ordering, returned ownership details, summary counts, and a non-obvious mailing-address behavior. It is nearly complete, though the exact response structure and what the summary counts contain are left implicit.

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 limit, county, cursor, mailing, owner_key, and current_only. The description adds semantic value by contrasting owner_key and mailing-address lookup and by explaining that mailing-address searches group related LLCs and trusts sharing a mailbox, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 a specific query resource: every property ever recorded for an owner, identified by owner_key or mailing address, with ownership status, acquisition date, price, and summary counts. It is easy to distinguish from generic property search, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with them.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining the owner_key and mailing-address input modes and the portfolio-history result. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as search_ownership_records or search_owners, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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