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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the matching model (abbreviations, partial words, typos, optional commas; house numbers exact; approximate matches labeled) and the result-shape asymmetry: exact hit returns every parcel there up to 100, otherwise up to 15 ranked locations. It also flags the cost implication of include_owner=true, which is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: what it finds, then matching tolerance, then result shapes, then field/cost caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial, with only minor compression possible in the korzy_id/point-lookup sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not owed here, and the safety profile comes from annotations. What remains missing is how the limit parameter interacts with the exact/ranked result caps, plus any hint about how many ranked candidates to expect before falling back to a point lookup.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does so for address (format, abbreviation/typo tolerance, exact house numbers) and include_owner (adds published owner fields, doubles cost). The limit parameter is never named, though the 'up to 100' and 'up to 15 ranked locations' ceilings hint at result capping. Strong compensation with one gap.

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 definition opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find parcels by address'), including the expected address shape ('street, city, state'), so an agent immediately knows this is the address-based search entry point rather than an ID lookup. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_parcel as the follow-up route for a resolved korzy_id, which keeps it from a 5, but the scope is otherwise unambiguous.

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: fuzzy address entry, with a note that korzy_id-less locations need a point lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no statement that get_parcel should be preferred once an ID is known, and no mention of prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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