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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the two tiers (live and archived), which is useful behavioral information about the data scope. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases, error conditions, or response details. Since annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that is information-dense and front-loaded. It specifies the scope (per-state), the content (county and property counts), and the tiers (live and archived). No wasted words or redundancy.

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 no-input, read-only tool, the description is adequate. It explains what data will be returned without needing an output schema. It could potentially mention the output format, but given the simplicity, this is a minor omission. The tool is unlikely to be misused with this description.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no obligation to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 clearly states the tool provides per-state county and property counts, split between live and archived tiers. This names the resource and granularity, and implies a read operation. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like estate_stats, the specific mention of 'coverage' and tiers gives enough clarity for an agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the title and context, which is a significant gap given the presence of similar tools like estate_stats.

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