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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the $0.05 USD cost and the fact that it scans for 'material' changes relative to a caller-supplied timestamp. It stops short of explaining what 'material' filters or what happens on an invalid/unresolved address.

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?

Two short sentences, with the cost front-loaded and the functional scope stated immediately. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required. Still, for a paid, open-world lookup with 5 undocumented parameters the description leaves gaps around the resolution prerequisite, what qualifies as a material change, and failure modes.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies the meaning of 'since' as a caller-supplied timestamp and hints at the address scope; city, state, unit, and validation constraints (maxLength/minLength) are left entirely to the raw schema.

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 clear verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('material local permit-record changes') with scope ('for a resolved property since a caller-supplied timestamp'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling 'localproof.check_property_changes', so the agent must guess which of the two to pick.

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 phrase 'for a resolved property' strongly implies that jurisdiction resolution must happen first, but this prerequisite is never stated explicitly nor tied to a sibling tool. There is no when-not guidance or mention of the alternative change-detection tool.

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