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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: the preview tier limit of 25 rows per page and the location prerequisite for certain filters. These are not present in the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and provide useful context about pagination and input constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key constraint. It is concise and well-structured, though it could be slightly expanded for parameter clarification.

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?

Given the tool has 20 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is too thin. It mentions page size and a location requirement but does not explain return format, how filters combine, or how to construct a valid query. The absence of output schema increases the burden on the description, which it fails to meet.

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 coverage is only 5% (only state has a description). The description groups filters into categories (category, value, date, toggle) but does not map them to actual parameter names like max_value, sold_after, owner_occupied, etc. It does not clarify the meaning of q, zip, city, or map bounds parameters. With 20 parameters, this is insufficient to guide correct invocation.

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 searches public property records, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions preview tier, which is extra detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like estate_owner or estate_parcel, so it's not fully distinct.

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 a constraint: category, value, date, and toggle filters require a location. This is useful guidance for when to include location parameters. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives, such as estate_owner or estate_parcel, so the selection guidance is incomplete.

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