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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description goes further by describing the return contents (FEMA flood zone, EPA records, Census demographics, county public record with numbered sources, live listings) and by asserting no side effects: 'looks nothing up and starts nothing.' With no output schema, that payload enumeration carries real weight; it stops short of describing errors or behavior when the hashid is unknown/stale.

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 core action and the origin of the identifier, then the payload, then the usage trigger. It is on the long side and the long enumeration of returned data types borders on padding, but every clause informs retrieval or invocation.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape summary, the identifier provenance, and the lifecycle link to status.gathering/researching_county_record. Only failure modes (invalid or expired hashid) are unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds the second legitimate source of the value: the hashid can come from look_up_parcel's parcel.hashid or be extracted from a building page URL (/parcel/{hashid}/...). That URL-derivation detail is not in the schema and is practically useful.

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 ('Read a building SPACEXPLORATION already has') and explicitly separates itself from the similarly named sibling: it returns the same payload as look_up_parcel but performs no lookup. An agent can distinguish this from look_up_parcel without opening either schema.

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 names the exact trigger condition ('use it to check on a building whose status.gathering or status.researching_county_record was true') and the precondition (a hashid already in hand). The contrast 'It looks nothing up and starts nothing' tells the agent when to reach for look_up_parcel instead.

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