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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds real value by citing the 40% median surge rule under T.C.A. § 67-5-1701, which grounds the computation legally. But it says nothing about the return value, what happens for unsupported counties, or whether the result is a flag versus a computed percentage.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core operation and puts the key legal threshold inline. Zero filler.

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?

For a 3-param computation tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential purpose and threshold. With no output schema, it could say more about what result is produced (e.g. surge percentage, pass/fail flag), which keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description contextualizes the county parameter via the statute-specific benchmark and the Hamilton/Knox scope, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own prior/current value descriptions.

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 (evaluate), resource (individual parcel appraisal surge), and scope (between reappraisal cycles against county benchmarks). The 'individual parcel' framing implicitly contrasts with county/roll-level analytics siblings like get_hamilton_roll_analytics, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'evaluate an individual parcel's appraisal surge' implies when to reach for this tool, and the benchmark context clarifies the use case. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives for portfolio- or roll-level comparisons.

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