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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a fixed $0.25 USD charge and the fact that unsupported jurisdictions fail before any payment occurs. It does not explain why a lookup carries readOnlyHint=false or the result shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 no filler: cost is front-loaded, then the operation, then routing alternatives and the failure condition. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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. Combined with fully documented parameters, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical context: pricing, jurisdiction support limits, and the routing alternatives.

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 all four parameters (address, city, unit, state) are already documented in the schema, including the California-only jurisdiction note. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or routing detail beyond 'one property', 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 and resource: 'Reconcile released planning applications and entitlement activity for one property.' It also explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (check_zoning_context, build_property_intelligence_pack), so an agent can distinguish it without reading the 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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for planning records') plus two named alternatives with the conditions that select them (current zoning context vs. multi-source context). It also states the pre-condition that unsupported/held jurisdictions fail before payment.

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