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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, and the description adds real value beyond them: it explains the returned object types, that match basis and ambiguity are surfaced, that property and parcel are barely-overlapping populations that may return one/both, and that the call is free.

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?

Core action is front-loaded and sentences are dense and purposeful. There is mild redundancy between 'canonical DFX object ids' and the closing sentence restating that the ids are canonical across the server, but overall it reads tightly.

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-value burden and does so well, naming the typed objects, the ambiguity signal, and the two populations. It stops short of describing no-match behavior or the shape of the ambiguity field, but is largely complete for a resolver.

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 schema already documents address, city, state, and limit in detail. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Turn a street address into canonical DFX object ids') and clarifies the two output populations (property vs parcel). It clearly separates this resolver from the search_* siblings by describing it as an address-to-id resolution step, though it never names a specific alternative 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?

The use case (given an address, get canonical ids) is implied clearly, and 'Free' signals cost. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives like search_parcels, verify, or get_property_record, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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