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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered externally. The description adds useful return-content context by listing the aggregate metrics, but it does not discuss ordering, performance, or how the limited group list is selected beyond what the schema implies.

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 definition is front-loaded, stating the aggregation outputs before examples, with no filler or repeated framing. The long enumeration of grouping dimensions is dense but necessary and remains readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return content; it does this by naming the aggregate metrics and grouping dimensions. It is nearly complete for an aggregation tool, though ordering and default result behavior are left to the schema.

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, and group_by semantics. The description restates the available grouping fields and statewide/county scope, but adds no additional format, ordering, or filtering meaning beyond the schema.

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 aggregation resource and its returned metrics: parcel counts, total/average/median appraised value, and total acres. It also names the grouping dimensions and scope, making it distinguishable from search-oriented siblings like search_properties and get_property.

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 gives concrete usage examples such as 'largest owners in Davidson' and 'value by land use', and clarifies statewide versus single-county scope. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives like owner_portfolio or search_owners, but the examples establish the intended context clearly.

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