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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower. The description adds two pieces of context annotations cannot: a $0.10 USD cost and the constraint that results are only available for jurisdictions with a supported parcel source.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the price and then the payload. No wasted clauses, though the trailing jurisdiction caveat is slightly buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero parameter documentation and no routing guidance among many similar siblings, the definition leaves the agent short on the information needed to invoke this correctly rather than a neighbouring tool.

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 4 parameters, and the description never mentions address, city, unit, or state. Only the conventional naming of the fields provides any hint; the description does not compensate for the total lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Return') and resource ('privacy-minimized official parcel context record') and enumerates the attribute classes it bundles (land-use, physical-property, zoning, assessor). This implicitly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like check_zoning_context or check_property, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the 15 sibling check_* tools, nor on prerequisites beyond the vague 'jurisdictions with a supported parcel source' qualifier. The agent must infer selection from the attribute list alone.

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