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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by revealing a 24h upstream cache and the behavior that meta.cached may appear on repeat queries. It does not describe response structure or error behavior, but the annotations lower the burden and the caching note is useful.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains input modes, and ends with a cache warning—every sentence earns its place. This is a model of concise, structured writing.

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?

Given 17 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential high-level behavior: data scope, location modes, filtering, and caching. It does not mention pagination or sort order, but the schema documents limit/offset and the first sentence hints at the return fields. Overall, it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-relationship semantics by grouping the three location modes and stating that all other parameters narrow the result set, which helps agents avoid invalid combinations. This pushes it above the baseline.

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 clearly states this tool searches normalized U.S. property records with specific data categories (owner, structural, tax, sale history) and explains the three location-pinning modes. While it implicitly differentiates from listing/search siblings by focusing on property records, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description gives clear usage context by explaining the three mutually exclusive location input methods and that all other parameters are filters. It does not mention when to choose this over sibling searches or any exclusions, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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