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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: expected latency ('takes a few seconds'), the three possible status outcomes, their meanings, and that a downed county service does not block ordering. It omits auth/permission needs and any rate-limit or retry semantics, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then timing, then an outcome-to-action mapping. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of explaining the status return values and their consequences, and adds latency expectations. It is missing input-format guidance, which is the one substantive omission.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the three required parameters — no format for address lines, whether state must be a two-letter code, or how county should be named. For three required inputs with zero schema documentation, this is a meaningful gap the description does not compensate for.

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 verb and resource ('Check that an address matches a real parcel in the county's records'), and the 'BEFORE ordering' clause ties it to the ordering workflow, separating it from siblings like check_coverage and order_title_search.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (before ordering) and gives a decision branch for every outcome: 'matched' = safe to order, 'not_found' = ask the user to correct, 'unavailable' = proceed anyway because ordering retries. Nothing is left to inference.

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