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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the baseline is lower. The description adds meaningful context: JSON preview only, mode-specific row limits, no query/signal/offset support in owner_portfolios mode, and an important caveat that names do not prove identity, authority, debt, equity, distress, or intent to sell. It does not describe authentication or rate limits, but it adds substantial behavioral and interpretive context beyond annotations.

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 four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mode selection, followed by limits and data interpretation caveats. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: two modes, when to use each, row limits, pagination restrictions, JSON-only output, and the critical caveat that owner names are not proof of identity or financial condition. Together with the detailed schema and annotations, an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter meanings are already richly documented in the schema. The description reinforces mode selection and row-limit differences between property_records and owner_portfolios, but it mostly restates constraints already present in the schema and does not add new syntax or format details. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: searching recorded county property facts or repeated owner-name groups. It clearly distinguishes the two internal modes, property_records and owner_portfolios, so an agent can tell what the tool does and how it differs from a generic catalog or metadata 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?

Explicitly routes between the two modes: use property_records for address, parcel or owner-name searches, and owner_portfolios for unfiltered groups. It also states row and offset constraints per mode. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as gisdb_search_catalog, gisdb_guide_search, or gisdb_start_search, so guidance is strong but not fully complete.

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