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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose something useful: the output is diagnostic evidence-gap material (classification axes, missing evidence) rather than a savings or filing determination. It still says nothing about whether the lookup is read-only in practice, what happens when the address/PIDN is unknown or outside county_key, or any failure behavior.

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 sentences with no padding, and the disclaimer is placed after the purpose. However, the first sentence is noun-stacked and information-poor for its length, so brevity does not translate into clarity.

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 annotations and no output schema means the description must describe what comes back, and it only gestures at it ('classification axes', 'missing evidence') without structure or format. Combined with an undocumented required parameter, an agent could call this but could not predict or interpret the result.

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 only 50%: county_key is well documented in the schema, but address_or_pidn has no schema description and the tool description never mentions either parameter. The dual address-or-PIDN format (and what a PIDN looks like) is left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb is 'Inspect' but the resource is buried in jargon ('retained assessment/building observations, separate classification axes and method-specific missing evidence') that never resolves into a concrete, checkable operation. An agent cannot tell what this returns or how it differs from siblings like get_property_assessment or simulate_property_model, which sound like the same domain.

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 only usage framing is a restriction ('for local Development testing') plus an exclusion ('does not establish savings or filing readiness'). There is no positive guidance on when to call this versus the many audit_*/get_* assessment tools, and no prerequisites are stated.

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