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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that only open rolls are read, that no owner names are returned, that figures are comparisons rather than an opinion of value, and that ballpark market value is emitted only where an official source permits it.

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 the trigger sentence, then a dense enumeration of returned data and coverage. Every sentence carries information, though the long municipality list is bulky; still, no wasted 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the return payload (assessed value, roll years, market date, change from previous roll, rank among similar properties, ballpark market value, appeal deadline) and states the coverage boundaries. An agent knows exactly what to expect.

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 75%, so most parameters are self-documented, but the description adds meaning for the province parameter by enumerating the covered jurisdictions (Quebec, NS, NB, MB, AB cities) and for market value by tying it to the source per jurisdiction. The lang enum is left unexplained.

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 (reads open assessment rolls for a single address) and precisely scopes it to homeowner questions about assessed value, over-assessment, or home worth. It clearly distinguishes itself from portfolio/market tools like stats_marche or taxe_bienvenue_adresse by being address-specific.

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?

Explicit trigger condition ("Call this when a homeowner asks about the assessed value of a SPECIFIC address...") plus an exclusions clause ("Other provinces have no open roll by address"). It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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