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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: what the response contains (served status, per-ground required facts, ZZ notice rules under a test key) and that an account via sign-in or API key is required.

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?

Front-loaded with the decision-relevant use case, then inputs, outputs, the exclusion, and the next step. Dense but every clause carries information; minor verbosity in the output description keeps it from a 5.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values and it does (served status, per-ground facts, test-key notice rules). It also covers auth requirements and the downstream tool, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents state, county, and city with examples and the ZZ test-key convention. The description only restates the inputs ('state, and county and city when known'), adding essentially nothing 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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (jurisdiction) and precisely scopes what it answers: whether a case can be opened for a property's location and which facts each eviction ground requires there. It also names the sibling it is not (evictions_get_state_eviction_facts), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 timing ('before creating a case'), an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('Do not use this for a state's published facts... use evictions_get_state_eviction_facts, which needs no key'), and the follow-on tool ('Next: evictions_create_case'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all covered.

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