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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world, but the description adds genuinely new operational context: the $0.002 USDC per-successful-call price, the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc), and that failed calls are not charged. That billing semantics is the key risk an agent must consider before calling. It does not discuss pagination or match ambiguity handling, but those are partly covered by the output schema and the limit parameter.

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 field list is front-loaded and the scoping ('NYC only'), data-source and pricing constraints follow in order of decision importance. The middle field enumeration is long but each item is a real capability signal; only the repetition of 'public' twice is mildly wasteful.

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 an output schema present, the description correctly does not explain return values, focusing instead on scope, data source, exclusions and cost. An agent has enough to decide both whether to call it and what it will pay. Only the address-matching behavior (how fuzzy matching across boroughs works) is left implicit.

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 address, borough codes and limit are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the implicit constraint that the address must be in New York City. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 the exact resource ('Owner of record for a New York City property'), enumerates the returned fields (BBL, building class, year built, assessed value, zoning), and identifies the data source (NYC PLUTO). It explicitly corrects the misleading 'skip_trace' name by stating no phone, e-mail or people-search data — which an agent needs to distinguish it from people-search siblings.

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 exclusions are given: 'NYC only' and 'Public property records only: no phone, e-mail or people-search data', which tells an agent exactly when this tool is the wrong choice despite its name. It stops short of naming an actual alternative tool for people-search or non-NYC lookups, so routing is implied rather than directed.

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