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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds material context the annotations do not: a fixed $0.06 cost, privacy-minimized output, and that unsupported/held jurisdictions fail before any charge. The cost and billing-failure behavior are exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure that matters for a paid call; only a little more (e.g. caching/rate behavior) is left implicit.

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?

Three tight sentences with the cost front-loaded, then purpose, then alternatives, then failure semantics. No filler and no repetition of name or title.

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. Between the description (purpose, alternatives, cost, failure) and the schema (all four params fully documented), an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents address, city, unit and state including the California jurisdiction hint. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus a precise resource (privacy-minimized official parcel and land-use attributes) and scopes it to released sources. It explicitly differentiates itself from check_zoning_context and build_property_intelligence_pack, so an agent can route without opening a sibling schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('use this for parcel facts') and names the two alternative tools with the condition that selects each (released zoning context, cross-source context). It also states the failure condition ('unsupported or held jurisdictions fail before payment'), which removes the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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