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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description appropriately spends its effort on domain-specific behavior: it returns address, county value, last sale, years held, and a shinnslist link, and it explicitly states 'never owner names.' That privacy constraint is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss rate limits or paging behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and has no filler sentences, and the trade definitions are relevant for a 22-parameter tool. The second sentence is very dense and could be more scannable as a list, but it still earns its space by explaining the trade enum.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, 22 optional parameters, and lack of an output schema, the description is complete enough to support selection and invocation. It defines the domain concept, explains the trade filter, lists the returned fields, and notes the owner-name limitation.

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 100%, so most parameter documentation is already handled. The description still adds real meaning beyond the enum by defining what each trade value means in underwriting terms — e.g., wholesaler as absentee owners held 10+ years, developer as land being most of value — which helps an agent choose the right enum value.

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 — 'Find off-market parcels' — plus geographic scope (Colorado or Virginia county, town, or ZIP) and source (county records). It also clarifies the output intent by framing results as buyer-list candidates ranked by likely sellers, which distinguishes it from a single-parcel detail or town-statistics tool.

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?

It gives clear selection guidance for the main behavioral choice: pick a trade category for a buyer's list, or omit trade to return every parcel in the area. The trade definitions provide concrete when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, which keeps it below a 5.

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