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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is 'NEVER a fraud verdict' and that it provides a 'Full owner/exemption EVIDENCE CHAIN', which clarifies the non-conclusive nature of the output. This adds value beyond the tool name and input schema.

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 verbose and includes detailed county-specific logic that could be streamlined. While it is front-loaded with the core concept, the subsequent examples and caveats make it longer than necessary for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers core purpose and county constraints but lacks details on output format or behavior of specific parameters like 'limit'. Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), more context on return values would improve completeness, especially for agents deciding how to invoke it.

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 description coverage is only 33% (county has a description). The description mentions counties in text, reinforcing that parameter, but does not explain 'limit' or 'minTier' (enum values high/medium/low). It fails to compensate for low schema coverage, leaving agent uncertain about parameter usage.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it flags parcels where a residential/homestead exemption coexists with a non-owner-occupant owner, indicating possible improper exemptions. The verb 'FLAGS' and resource 'exemption-contradiction' are specific, and the context of counties and target contractors differentiates it from siblings like 'overassessment_leads' or 'construction_window_leads'.

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 county constraints (only six counties) and the primary use case (exemption audit contractors). However, it does not compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving ambiguity for the agent to decide between similar offerings.

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