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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call costs 0 credits and returns descriptive metadata rather than records. It adds value beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the cost signal. The enumerated list is dense but each item maps to real output content. The only mild weakness is that the long enumeration reads as a run-on rather than being scannable.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an existing output schema, the description only needed to say what the tool covers and what it costs — both are present. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note whether the output is static metadata versus something that varies by account.

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 and the schema confirms an empty properties object, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The description correctly spends no words on inputs and focuses on what the parameterless call yields.

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 uses a specific verb ("Describe") and enumerates the exact resource contents: location sections with key fields and coverage, parcel field groups and presets, record id types, question/support limits, and attribution. An agent knows this is a discovery/metadata tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like lookup or get_record, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool describes the data model, so an agent would infer it should be called before querying or enriching. The "Free (0 credits)" note hints it is a low-cost first step, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as lookup or ask.

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