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

The description goes beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing that the tool 'creates a private FairPath audit record' while not changing an external system. This clarifies the side-effect profile beyond what readOnlyHint:false alone implies, though it stops short of describing rate limits or error behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, and the second clarifies side effects. The most important action is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the description addresses purpose and side effects. It could be slightly richer in explaining when to prefer this over the siblings, but for a single-parameter tool it is largely sufficient.

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% and the countyId parameter is thoroughly described with format and examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return public, CIE-backed county property-tax filing guidance and source metadata.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on property checks and evidence packet explanations, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 context is implied: this tool is for retrieving county-level filing requirements. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or pointers to the sibling tools, so an agent must rely on names and inference.

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