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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious result semantics: unavailable facts stay unavailable (no fabrication), commercial source area is not finished living area, and comparisons are drafts with evidence holds. It omits read-only/auth/rate-limit behavior and return shape, keeping it from 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?

Three dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and caveats following. No filler, though the legalistic phrasing ('evidence holds', 'filing readiness') is slightly heavy.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns; it conveys caveats about result reliability but not what fields or structure an agent receives. Adequate but incomplete for a lookup tool with a five-parameter schema.

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 every parameter is already documented (address, county_key, actual_sqft, address_or_pidn, notice_appraised_value). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Get') and resource ('retained county assessment observations and source provenance') scoped to 'a supported address or parcel ID'. An agent knows what kind of data comes back. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like get_property_model_readiness or lookup_property_tax, so not a 5.

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?

The 'for a supported address or parcel ID' phrasing implies the input precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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