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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: prefix-match semantics for street, pagination via limit/offset, and the meaning of the 'total' field. It doesn't discuss empty-result or error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what is returned and how matching works, the second covers requirements and pagination. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (address, building class, units, owner of record, open-item count) and explaining the total count. Requirements, narrowing behavior, and pagination are all covered, so nothing critical is missing for a 6-parameter read tool.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents the street/zip requirement rule and both examples. The description's genuinely additive piece is 'prefix match' for street and the narrowing semantics of borough/house_number; limit and offset are restated rather than explained (no max or default mentioned). Baseline-plus for the prefix detail, but not rich parameter guidance.

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 ('List tax lots') plus the scoping dimensions (street and/or ZIP) and even previews the returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, though it never differentiates itself from sibling lookup_property or get_property, which an agent must infer from the list-vs-single distinction.

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?

Explicitly gives the selection constraint: 'Requires "street" and/or "zip"; borough and house_number only narrow the search,' which tells the agent exactly which parameters are mandatory vs refining. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for single-lot lookups, so no exclusions are stated.

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