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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the data source (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy) and cost ($0.02 USDC per call), which are useful operational details. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but these are less critical given the read-only nature and simple parameter set.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds source, audience, and cost. The final sentence about property tax being the largest controllable expense is slightly extra but adds context for why this data matters. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the key metrics returned (effective tax rates, assessment ratios, appeal success rates), giving the agent a reasonable expectation of the output. It does not mention any limits, pagination, or behavior when optional parameters are omitted, but for a simple benchmark tool with one required parameter, this is adequate.

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 50% (state has a description, property_type does not but is an enum with self-explanatory values). The description mentions 'by state and property type', which confirms the role of both parameters but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. It does not clarify whether property_type is optional or provide formatting details.

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: it provides property tax benchmarks, listing exact metrics (effective tax rates by state and property type, assessment ratios, appeal success rates). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming these precise data points, making it clear what this tool returns compared to generic benchmark tools.

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?

The description identifies the target audience (property owners, asset managers, acquisition teams) and notes that property tax is a major operating expense, implying when this data is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_property_operating_benchmark or get_cap_rate_benchmark, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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