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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: jurisdiction-level coverage limits, a documented data gap (no sale prices in TX), and an explicit statement of what is excluded (owner names). It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup that is a minor omission.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts come first: what is returned, then where coverage applies, then what is excluded and the alternative. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (valuation and characteristics, not owner names). Coverage scope, the geographic limitation, and the sibling route for full records are all present, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 limit, query, state (including the MD/TX coverage constraint) and county with examples. The description repeats the state-level coverage idea but adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (search), resource (property parcels), and input (street address), then names the returned fields (assessed value, land use, most recent sale). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling parcel_details ('Use parcel_details for the full record'), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context via the coverage boundaries (Maryland statewide with sale prices vs. Harris County/Houston appraised-value-only), states a when-not (no owner names returned), and names the alternative for full records. The 'Texas is a non-disclosure state' note explains why sale prices are absent, which prevents an agent from misreading empty results as an error.

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