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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns only valuation and characteristics, never owner names, and sale-price availability varies by state. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, returned fields, coverage caveats, exclusions, and the sibling alternative all appear in three focused sentences. No sentence is wasted or redundant with the schema.

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 read-only list-style tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers what is returned, what is not returned, geographic coverage, and a pointer to the fuller sibling. Without an output schema, slightly more detail about the exact result shape could be ideal, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds interpretive value by clarifying that 'query' is a street-address fragment, that state coverage differs, and that sale-price availability depends on the state selected, which helps an agent choose parameter values correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search property parcels by street address' and lists the exact returned fields (assessed value, land use, most recent sale). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by saying 'Use parcel_details for the full record,' so an agent can tell it apart from related parcel tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by stating coverage limits (Maryland statewide vs. Harris County, TX/Houston), explicitly noting that Texas returns appraised value only and no sale prices, and pointing to parcel_details as the alternative for full records. It does not directly compare against other siblings like parcel_sales_history, so it falls just short of exhaustive guidance.

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