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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the search covers former owners by default, and each result carries owner_key, owned-ever vs. currently-owned counts, counties, and first/last acquisition dates.

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?

Three tight sentences lead with what is searched, then what comes back, then the natural next step. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so concretely (key, counts, counties, dates). The main omission is behavior when a name matches many owners or how limit interacts with result ordering, but nothing essential for a correct call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The "current AND former" phrasing implies what current_only=false returns, which is a small clarification, but no extra syntax or edge-case detail is added for name matching or limits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find people and companies by name") plus a non-obvious scope: searching current AND former ownership records. This distinguishes it from siblings like owner_portfolio (which takes a key) and search_ownership_records (record-level rather than owner-level).

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?

Gives an explicit follow-up path: "Pass an owner_key to owner_portfolio for the full list," which clarifies the intended two-step workflow. It does not explicitly exclude or contrast with search_ownership_records or search_properties, so the alternative-selection guidance is clear but not complete.

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