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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world) by disclosing what is absent (no officers, managers, registered agent, phone or email), how misses are reported (person owner, name not listed), and the 25-entity neighbor cap with parcel counts. 'Counts as a property lookup' is a useful quota/billing hint found nowhere in structured fields.

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 the action, geography and owner-type qualifier, and every clause (returned fields, absence caveats, lookup accounting) carries information. The first sentence is long and run-on, which costs some readability.

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?

Coverage limits (two counties only), alternative input forms, negative-case behavior and out-of-scope data are all spelled out, and an output schema exists so return structure needn't be explained. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents county enum, account pattern and lead_id format. The description only restates the lead_id-or-county+account pairing without adding format or usage detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (look up) plus exact resource (owner of record in the Texas Comptroller's franchise-tax registry) and scope (Dallas or Collin County property, LLC/corp/partnership/trust owners). It returns a concrete field list and is clearly distinct from entity-list siblings like find_owner_portfolio.

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 states the triggering condition — owner is an LLC, corporation, partnership or trust — and notes the result tells you when the owner is a person or the registry lacks the name, which effectively signals the non-applicable case. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g., find_owner_portfolio) for portfolio-wide or person-owner questions.

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