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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('one citable sentence') and the payload contents (deadline + the board to file with) in the absence of an 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?

Two short sentences, jurisdiction constraint front-loaded, deliverable stated second, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-format information ('one citable sentence') and the jurisdiction boundary. It stops short of noting edge cases (multi-deadline or non-appealable states) or citation currency, which would make it fully complete.

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 schema already documents that 'state' accepts a full name or two-letter code with examples. The description only restates the state scoping ('in a state'), adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb+resource: the deadline to appeal a property tax assessment in a US state, plus the board to file with, and parenthetically covers the terminology variants (protest, grieve, contest) an agent might encounter. It is clearly distinct from the sibling property_tax_us, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 narrow scope: 'UNITED STATES' plus a single required state parameter signals this is a jurisdiction-specific lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool is named, so an agent must infer routing from the scope alone.

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