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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return behavior: best match with 0-1 confidence, confidence_explanation, match_type, HTML/Markdown/JSON URLs, and up to 4 alternatives. It does not explicitly state no-match behavior, but the behavioral disclosure is otherwise strong.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core resolution behavior and return summary, then immediately gives the sibling alternative. Both sentences carry useful information with no wasted wording.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so: property facts, confidence, explanation, match type, URLs, and alternatives. Combined with full schema coverage and clear annotations, an agent has enough context to call the tool 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%, so the schema already documents address, zip, and borough. The description repeats that address is required but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: resolve a free-text NYC address to its tax lot (BBL) and return property facts. It clearly distinguishes this from get_property, which is for a known BBL/BIN, so an agent can select it without opening 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?

It explicitly states the required input (address) and names the alternative for known identifiers: 'Use get_property for a known BBL/BIN.' This gives a clear when-to-use condition and an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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