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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and non-idempotency; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the call costs $0.01 USD, and unsupported/held jurisdictions fail BEFORE payment so no charge is incurred. That cost and failure semantics are not derivable from the annotations. It falls short of 5 only because terms like 'released' and 'held' jurisdiction are never defined and no coverage-checking guidance is given.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the cost the agent most needs before invoking, then purpose, then the exclusion and alternative. Every clause carries load with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining agent-critical facts: cost, precondition of a resolved property, jurisdictional limits, failure behavior, and the alternative tool. Nothing material to calling it correctly is missing.

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) already carry their own documentation, including the California-only note on state. The description only gestures at 'a resolved property' and adds no format, disambiguation, or locality guidance beyond the schema, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Return released official zoning context for a resolved property') and explicitly draws the boundary against two other things: proposed-use/legal determinations and the sibling check_parcel_context for parcel attributes. An agent can tell it apart from its siblings without opening any 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?

It states when to use it ('for zoning evidence'), when NOT to ('not a proposed-use or legal determination'), names the alternative tool for a related-but-different need ('use check_parcel_context for parcel attributes'), and adds a precondition ('for a resolved property', reinforced by the 'unsupported or held jurisdictions fail' note). This is explicit routing guidance.

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