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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: partial matching is supported, owner names are not returned, and the data source is demo/sample only. This prevents unrealistic expectations and gives an agent a much clearer picture of the call's outcome. No contradictions with the annotations.

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 with the primary action and input. Each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: output fields, non-goals, and coverage limitations. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: the query target, matching behavior, returned fields, and the demo-data caveat. There is no output schema, so the explicit list of returned fields is sufficient.

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 owner_name and county adequately. The description reinforces that partial matching is supported, but this largely mirrors the schema's 'Full or partial owner name' phrasing. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Filter the bounded Montgomery County, TX demo property records by a supplied owner-name query.' It also clarifies what the tool is not ('not an owner-verification or people-finder service'), which helps an agent distinguish it from lookup tools. The output fields are enumerated, leaving little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: use it when searching the Montgomery County demo property set by owner name. It explicitly warns against using it for owner verification or people finding, and it discloses the demo-only data limitation. However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, which would have made routing fully explicit.

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