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

Annotations already establish a read-only, closed-world search, so the description's added value is in disclosing the return payload (pin, address, owner, county, location, map link) and the cursor-based pagination contract, which annotations do not cover. It stops short of stating result ordering guarantees or the meaning of an empty result set, but the safety and paging profile is clear.

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?

Two tight sentences: capability first, return values second, pagination pointer last. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 twelve-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description must carry the result shape and paging contract, and it does both. It is slightly thin on filter interaction (which parameters combine or conflict), but nothing essential for a correct first 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 twelve parameters are already documented in detail, including examples, defaults and ranges. The description only restates that these filter dimensions exist; it adds no format or precedence rules beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find parcels') and enumerates the three search modes (address words, owner name, location by point or box) plus optional county/city/ZIP narrowing. The phrase 'current owner name' faintly distinguishes it from search_owners, but no sibling is named outright, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 conveys the situations the tool covers (text, owner, proximity, administrative filters) and how to continue paging with next_cursor, which implies usage well enough. However, it never states when to prefer property_at or search_owners instead, and gives no guidance on which mode to pick when both q and owner could apply.

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