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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses first-call latency (10–20s), data provenance caveats (zoning is a dated summary of the bylaw), a 'not available yet' error state, and scope exclusions (no scores, valuations, or owner names). It does not describe pagination or size limits beyond the ~40 KB full flag.

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 operation and the status legend packed into a single parenthetical, then the section list. The 27-section enumeration is long but load-bearing; the nested parenthetical makes the first sentence heavier than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it defines each status value, what accompanies a named section (facts, notes, sources, licences), and the default headline-only behavior. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the response.

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. The description mostly restates the schema's 'sections' semantics, though it does add one genuinely new constraint — the lake section requires a sampled lake — and defines the status vocabulary the sections return.

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: a per-lot public-record report keyed by PID, with an explicit inventory of what the report contains. It implicitly complements the sibling find_parcel (which supplies the PID), but does not explicitly contrast with it inside the description itself.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description notes the 10–20 second cost for an unbuilt lot and that the lake section only appears 'beside a sampled lake', which quietly steers section selection. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or named alternative beyond the PID source hint.

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