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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact data fields returned, explicit non-returned categories, and a sharp coverage limitation that the data is only a Montgomery County, TX demo dataset with sample properties. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields, and the exclusions and coverage note are clearly placed. It is slightly longer than needed due to the example question list and the phrase 'any real estate lookup,' which is a bit overbroad, but it remains organized and readable.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating all key return fields and explicitly stating what is not returned. It covers input types, coverage limitations, default county behavior, and a contact path for broader coverage. This is complete enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret results 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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that broader county coverage is not enabled by default, which directly affects how the county parameter should be used, and reinforces that query accepts either an address or an account number.

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: 'Look up real estate property data by street address or account number.' It lists the exact return fields and clarifies what is not returned, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like property_search_owner or title-oriented 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 explicit example questions and a clear 'Use this for' statement. It also gives important exclusions and a coverage note. However, it does not name any alternative sibling tool for owner or title searches, so the routing guidance stops short of being fully explicit about alternatives.

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