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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the effective tax rate is a computed ratio of the two medians, and attribution plus a canonical page are returned with each row so results can be cited — details an agent cannot infer from annotations or 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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first establishes the dataset and the derived metric, the second covers citation metadata. The first sentence is dense but every clause names a distinct field, so nothing is padding.

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 one-optional-param read tool with a rich annotation set and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: content, derivation rule, and citation payload are all stated. Minor gaps remain — units/currency are not stated and coverage of DC/territories is unspecified — but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 100% and the single `state` parameter is documented there, including the omit-for-all-states behavior. The description adds no units, casing, or format guidance beyond saying results are 'by state', so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific dataset and enumerates its contents (median property taxes, median monthly owner costs, median home value by state, plus a derived effective tax rate) with its source (Census ACS 5-year). It is clearly distinguishable from rate-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_home_values or get_state_loan_to_income, which are the closest neighbors.

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?

Use is only implied: the state-level framing plus 'attribution ... so an answer can be cited' signals a citation-grade state lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of alternatives such as get_home_values, and no statement of what happens when the optional state param is omitted beyond what the schema already says.

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