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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: national normalization, county coverage count, returned fields, and update cadence. It does not contradict annotations and gives enough behavioral detail for a read-only data lookup.

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 description is concise: two purposeful sentences plus a short update note. The field list and use cases are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place, though the field enumeration is somewhat dense.

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?

No output schema is present, but the description lists all returned fields and explains the scoring basis. It covers return scope, use cases, and update frequency; the only omitted detail (Gold-tier requirement for history) is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 schema covers 100% of the single optional `days` parameter with its own detailed description, so the description does not need to add parameter syntax. The description adds no detail about the history option, but the schema fully compensates, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource: a 0-100 property-tax burden score for each of 3,222 US counties, with named output fields. This clearly communicates what the tool does and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools.

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?

The description provides explicit call conditions ('Call when the user asks about local property-tax load, homeownership or landlord carrying costs, or county tax comparisons...'), making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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