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

The annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. On top of that, the description discloses non-obvious operational details: the 25-free-calls daily limit, $0.03 cost after the allowance, UTC reset, permit-to-PIN linkage derived by address/geo match, and the important caveat that assessment values are assessed, not market values.

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 description is front-loaded with the most operationally relevant fact (free tier and cost), then gives the resource scope, contents, data-provenance caveat, and value interpretation caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the major return sections and flags the two caveats most likely to mislead an agent: permit linkage and assessed-vs-market values. With a single well-defined parameter and strong annotations, this is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 parameter, pin, and the schema already covers it 100% with a pattern and a '14-digit PIN' description. The description repeats that the dossier is keyed by PIN but does not need to add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns a full Cook County / Chicago property dossier for a PIN, and enumerates the major contents (parcel basics, sales/deed history, permits, tax assessment, neighborhood context). The phrase 'one-call due-diligence record' differentiates it from raw open-data lookups and sibling tools like get_cook_county_parcel.

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 clearly positions this as the comprehensive due-diligence call and explains why it is not reproducible via raw open-data queries. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer a simpler parcel or address search, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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