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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the tool's scope (e.g., county variation, link to tax authority) without contradicting annotations. It doesn't mention error handling or data limitations, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 a single informative sentence followed by a usage guideline. It packs many specific content details without being overly verbose. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists topics, making it efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (a comprehensive list of tax rule components) and when to use it. The only gap is that it doesn't specify the output format, but the enumerated content list compensates for the missing 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% for the single 'state' parameter, so the schema already provides meaning. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, though it implies the state is the subject. The schema's odd reference to propertyTaxRatePercent does not affect this dimension since the description avoids repeating it.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a state's property tax mechanics, listing specific content areas such as assessed value derivation, exemptions, deadlines, and appeals. It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it addresses 'mechanics or deadlines rather than a dollar amount,' making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the question is about mechanics or deadlines rather than a dollar amount.' This provides clear guidance and implicitly names the alternative (calculate_property_tax) for dollar-amount questions, fulfilling the when/when-not requirement.

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