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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load, and it does well: it discloses the matching methodology (ZIP code plus subdivision wording from the appraisal district legal description in TX; county subdivision name in UT), what the response contains per state, and the explicit epistemic limit that candidates are not authoritative. It omits cost/auth/rate-limit and ordering behavior, which keeps it 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?

The purpose and supported states are front-loaded, and the parenthetical matching mechanics earn their place by explaining why results may be fuzzy. The single dense paragraph mixes purpose, parameters, and return values, which is slightly harder to scan than separated sections but wastes little.

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 2-parameter read lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape information (match explanation, certificate PDF or registration number, status, expiry, management company) and the cross-state coverage limit. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `address` is specified as a full street address with city and state, and `community` is described as an optional subdivision/community name that ranks candidates — the ranking effect is genuinely new information beyond the schema. Format examples or the matching failure mode for a malformed address are absent.

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 precise verb+resource: identifying which HOA/POA/condo association may govern an address, and names the two official sources (Texas HOA management certificates, Utah Department of Commerce registry). The resource is unmistakably distinct from siblings like zoning_lookup or check_address, so an agent can route here without ambiguity.

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?

Coverage boundaries function as usage guidance: only Texas and Utah are supported, and other states return 'unsupported' with guidance, which effectively tells the agent when not to expect results. The caveat that results are candidates only and that recorded CC&Rs decide is a clear interpretive constraint. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for the states it does not cover.

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