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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the preview-tier limit (25 rows per page) and the location prerequisite, which are non-obvious constraints. It says nothing about auth, rate limits, or result shape, so it adds value but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the purpose leads before the usage constraint. Efficient and well front-loaded, though there is room to fold in a bit more param context without bloat.

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 20-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it covers the central location prerequisite and the page-size ceiling but never mentions pagination via page, per_page, or the free-text lookup paths (q, address, owner_name). Adequate for basic invocation, not for confident full use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully groups the filter parameters – category, value (min/max), date (sold_after/before), and toggle (absentee/owner_occupied) filters – and names the location parameters, adding real structure. But it omits q, address, owner_name, page, and per_page, leaving a substantial share of the 20 parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('public property records'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings like estate_property_audit, estate_owner, or estate_stats, which share the same domain, so it falls 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?

The description supplies a real prerequisite – filters require a location (state, county, city, zip or map bounds) – which tells the agent when the tool is usable. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative sibling such as estate_property_audit or estate_stats, leaving routing to inference.

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