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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool queries city rental registries and returns licensed-property counts plus a page listing, which is genuinely useful context, but it does not go beyond basic search behavior.

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 dense sentence covers the action, the target source, the input keyword, and the output shape. It is scannable and non-redundant, though it is wordier than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly explains the return shape—how many licensed properties each owner holds, near which campus, and the page listing. For a one-parameter read-only search tool, this is reasonably complete, though it omits details about match semantics and empty-result behavior.

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?

There is only one required parameter, `query`, and the schema gives no description for it. The description contributes the important semantic that the query is a name, but it does not give formatting, partial-match, or edge-case guidance, so the compensation for the 0% schema coverage is only partial.

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 verb and resource—search registered owners/contacts in city rental registries by name—and states the return outcomes: licensed property counts, campuses, and the page listing. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like `search_properties` and `search_colleges`.

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's phrase 'by name' implies the tool is for owner/contact lookup by name. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use them, leaving alternative routing to inference.

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