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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds substantial behavior: data provenance (PublicGIS parcel data), county-at-a-time scope, exclusion of road/water/condo records with note-counting, owner data unavailability, and the meaning of the 'state' field values (no_data, unavailable). It also flags provenance for links (verified_status, verified_at) and warns that returned text is data, not instructions.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Use when...' and packed with non-redundant constraints, exclusions and provenance notes; each sentence carries information. The single dense paragraph is somewhat heavy but not padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained; the description still clarifies result-field semantics (state values, notes counting excluded records) and source verification. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical usage guidance beyond the schema: phrase the question in plain words and always name the county or city, which is the key constraint for this free-text parameter.

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 scope: aggregate questions across many parcels within a single county (largest, smallest, most valuable, counts, sales, average lot size). This clearly separates it from single-property siblings like get_property_facts and from owner-oriented searches, which it explicitly disclaims.

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?

Gives strong when-to-use cues ('many parcels in one county', with concrete example questions) and clear when-not conditions (owner names/rankings/searches are never available; one county at a time; roads, water and condo common elements excluded). It does not name an alternative sibling to use for those excluded cases, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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