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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the explicit content exclusions (no sale prices, valuations, phone numbers or emails) and the privacy behavior of my_research, where the user's notes and free-text fields are only counted and never leave RBSHome. It does not cover latency or section cost, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource and identifier forms, then ordered from core payload to optional sections to exclusions. It is dense but every clause carries information; the single long paragraph could be broken into bullets for faster scanning, which is the only reason it is not a 5.

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 5-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: accepted identifiers, optional section semantics, and explicit scope limits on both counties and returned fields. Return-value shape is correctly left to the output schema.

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%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains that the two identifier routes are alternatives and defines what each optional section actually contains (terrain = slope and flood, history = weekly tax-roll changes, links = county record and free map links, outline = parcel boundary, my_research = saved structured facts). It does not mention history_weeks or its 1–52 range interaction with the history section, leaving one small gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get one Dallas County or Collin County, Texas property") and states both accepted identifier forms (lead_id County:account, or county+account). It also enumerates the data domains returned (location, owner, delinquency, appraisal values) and the optional sections, so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_properties or filter_properties.

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?

Usage is implied by the identifier requirements (this is a single-record detail lookup, not a search), and the exclusion line ("Returns no sale prices, valuations, phone numbers or emails") steers agents away from expecting those. However, it never explicitly names an alternative sibling such as get_tax_sale_history or comps_for_address, nor states when not to use this tool.

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