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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine content disclosure beyond that: it tells the agent the answer will contain recording offices, free name sources, official statewide portals, and statutory deed-copy fees, which sets expectations for the return payload despite there being no output schema.

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 jurisdiction marker and then a tight enumeration of the four things returned. One sentence, no wasted preamble, though the closing clause 'the fee for a copy of a deed when the statute was read' is slightly garbled and costs a bit of clarity.

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 one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: jurisdiction scope and the composition of the answer. Only the absence of any sibling routing or 'when not to use' note keeps it below a 5.

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 single 'state' parameter is fully documented with name/code examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the 'state or DC' scope; it adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 states a concrete subject (property ownership lookup in the US) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: recording office, free assessor parcel search, statewide online search, and deed-copy fee. It is clear this is a reference/guide answer rather than a live lookup, but it does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as state_overview_us or verify_license_us.

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 is implied by the 'How to find out who owns a property' framing and the 'UNITED STATES' scope marker, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no preconditions, and no routing to alternatives for related questions (title verification, deed transfer, state overviews).

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