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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds value by specifying the global scope ('corpus totals') and the freshness field, which implies a timestamp. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the resource, purpose, and output fields without any filler. The parenthetical list is compact and immediately actionable.

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 parameterless, read-only stats tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description fully specifies the expected return content (totals, live/archived counts, states, counties, freshness). No additional guidance is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully describes them (vacuous). The description correctly avoids over-explaining and instead clarifies the output fields, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 states a clear verb ('totals') and resource ('public-records API'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like estate_search (search) and estate_owner/parcel (individual records), making its purpose 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?

The description implies usage when corpus-level statistics are needed, but it does not explicitly differentiate from estate_coverage or provide when-not-to-use guidance. With no parameters and a simple read-only scope, the context is clear but lacks explicit routing to alternatives.

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