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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds the result cap of 10 plus the id/title/url result shape and the fetch handoff. The closing 'Read-only' restates annotation data rather than adding to it, and the explicit return-shape mention is partly redundant with the output schema, 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: what it searches, what it returns, the follow-up call, and the alternative tool. Scope and exclusion information is front-loaded 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?

For a one-parameter read-only search with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: geographic scope, result cap, result shape, escalation to fetch, and the sibling to use for filtered lists.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the address/CAD/lead-ID/owner-name formats. The description restates those same four forms with no added syntax, constraints, or edge-case behavior (e.g. what happens with ambiguous owner names).

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 plus resource ('Find ... property records in the user's RBSHome account') and bounds the domain to Dallas and Collin County, Texas. It explicitly separates itself from 'filter_properties' (buy-box lists) and 'fetch' (full record by id), so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Enumerates the accepted lookup keys (street address, appraisal-district account number, lead ID, owner name) and states the exclusion directly: 'Does not filter by criteria; use filter_properties for buy-box lists.' It also gives the follow-up step ('Call fetch with an id for the full record'), so the multi-tool workflow is fully specified.

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