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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: results always carry the true match count beside the sample, an empty result names the filter that emptied it, dfx_id is a cross-entity handle rather than a display label, and the call is free. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 purpose then scope then behavioral guarantees, and every sentence carries information. The all-caps dfx_id paragraph is heavy-handed relative to its content, which costs it the top mark.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (assessed value, gross building area, value per square foot, annual tax, year built) and the handle semantics. Nothing critical for correct invocation is left unstated.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining that limit sizes only the SAMPLE while true match count is always reported, and by clarifying the dfx_id semantics and the owner-occupancy exclusion rule. It does not, however, add format or ordering detail beyond the schema.

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 (search) and resource (assessor parcel layer) and lists the exact filterable dimensions. Explicitly distinguishes itself from the address path (resolve_address) with 'instead of one exact address' and 'without an address in hand'.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule ('the way to ask a QUESTION of the parcel layer without an address') and a hard precondition ('At least one filter is required'), plus 'Free'. It stops short of naming the sibling resolve_address outright as the alternative, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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