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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup. The description adds important domain behavior: it warns that a county listing does not confirm lead, assessment, or CAD coverage, and it directs the agent to verify package details before purchase.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. It states the purpose first, then gives the verification guidance and the key coverage caveat.

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 simple two-parameter catalog search with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It gives the important caveat about county listings not confirming coverage, though it does not describe result shape or pagination behavior.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including that query is an optional county-name or FIPS filter. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find county records packages and directory listings.' This clearly distinguishes the catalog-browsing tool from sibling search tools, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with gisdb_search_records.

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 implies the tool is used before buying to check package availability, price, coverage, and limits, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. The buying context is helpful but not a full routing rule.

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