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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotated fact — the $0.25 USD cost — which is valuable for a paid tool, but says nothing about latency, source freshness, or failure modes.

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 no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence is too compressed to be informative.

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 enumerated, but for a paid, multi-parameter tool in a dense sibling family the description leaves the agent unable to judge scope or routing. It should at least distinguish this from the parcel/zoning context siblings.

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, so the description carries the full burden and provides no parameter meaning at all. It never mentions address, unit, city, or state, or explains that only address is required while the rest refine the match.

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?

The description states a verb+resource ('resolve a property') and a vague output ('source-backed local-government context snapshot'), but does not say what property attributes or government context are returned. Against siblings like check_parcel_context, check_zoning_context, and check_property_changes, an agent cannot tell which to choose from this text alone.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. With 15 sibling tools covering overlapping property topics, the absence of routing guidance is a notable gap.

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