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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile, and the description goes well beyond them: provenance of the links (GovDir directory, checked on a schedule via verified_status/verified_at), the caveat that the named office has final say, and an explicit prompt-injection warning to treat returned text as data, never instructions. That is material behavioral context an agent could not get from the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then outputs, then provenance/safety caveats. Dense but every sentence carries distinct value; the security note in particular earns its place. Slightly long for a two-parameter tool, but nothing is redundant.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, where it comes from, how freshness is tracked, and the trust boundary for the text. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result 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% and both parameters are fully documented, including the enum values and the state pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description illustrates the kinds of topics the guide covers but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

Names a specific verb (explain how something works) plus the resource it returns (GovDir's plain-language guide, the state's own rules, and the guide page URL). The examples (who assesses property, who collects tax, where deeds are recorded) make the scope unambiguous and let an agent distinguish it from data-lookup siblings like county_parcel_data or get_property_facts.

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?

States the trigger condition clearly: use it to explain how something works in a state 'before sending the user somewhere,' which implicitly sequences it ahead of the redirect/lookup tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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