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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds the critical caveat that the current Montgomery County, TX connector returns demo/sample records only. It also discloses the exact value components returned, giving the agent behavioral expectations beyond the structured 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete usage examples, a prerequisite, and an important data caveat. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no 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 simple two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers what data is returned, when to use it, the prerequisite lookup step, and the demo-data limitation, leaving no critical gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining that account_number comes from property_lookup and that the county parameter currently maps to demo/sample data for Montgomery County. This procedural guidance goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Get property value history and tax assessment trends over multiple years.' It enumerates the exact data shown (market value, land value, improvement value, percentage change) and explicitly ties it to valuation trend questions, distinguishing it from lookup tools like property_lookup.

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?

Provides explicit example questions and a clear prerequisite: 'Requires account number (use property_lookup first to find it).' This tells an agent when and how to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.

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