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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain behavior beyond that: sales carry BOTH the instrument total and this parcel's allocated share, and it explains why (a deed repeats its full price on every parcel it covers), which warns the agent against double-counting. It does not describe output shape or failure behavior for an invalid id.

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?

Purpose and payload are front-loaded, and the parcel-lookup clarification is emphasized where it matters. It is slightly padded — the standalone 'Free.' fragment and repeated restatement of the property/parcel duality both in the description and schema — but no sentence is truly wasted.

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 burden of describing returns and does so well by enumerating every result category. The one-parameter, read-only shape is fully covered; only edge cases such as an unrecognized id are left unaddressed.

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% and the parameter description already spells out both accepted forms and the property-or-parcel duality, so the tool description largely restates it ('both come back in full'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds little new parameter-level meaning.

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 input (a DFX id) and enumerates the concrete payload: current state, dated events, ownership/management relationships, debt with maturity dates, recorded sales with consideration and registry book/page, plus provenance. It also explicitly resolves ambiguity against sibling tools by declaring 'THIS IS ALSO THE PARCEL LOOKUP', which separates it from search_parcels and search_property_events.

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?

It gives clear context for use — fetch by id after obtaining a dfx_id from an address resolution object or a parcel search row — and notes the call is free, which matters for selection. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternatives (search_parcels, resolve_address, search_property_events) or stating when not to use it, leaving some inference.

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