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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds the valuable part: that matches do NOT establish ownership authority, assessments, savings, or filing eligibility and require user confirmation. It also says it returns 'matching reasons and source evidence.' Strong semantic disclosure beyond the safety profile, though it could note result volume/limits.

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 sentences: purpose, then return content, then a disclaimer — well front-loaded and each sentence contributes. No padding, though the disclaimer sentence is somewhat dense.

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 read-only 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers input intent, what is returned (matching reasons, source evidence), and the critical interpretation caveat. It stops short of describing match criteria or result cardinality, but is largely complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The 'property' parameter is well-described in the schema ('Exact county account, GPIN or street address'), so the description rightly doesn't repeat it. The 'county_fips' enum (51153) has no schema description, but the description's 'Prince William County' phrasing contextualizes it. With 50% coverage, baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find possible related Prince William County properties'), the method ('from the retained county owner index'), and the input ('using a specific subject property'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many audit_/lookup_/recheck_ siblings that operate on a single property's tax or eligibility data.

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 'using a specific subject property' implies the input context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., vs recheck_property_opportunities or suggest_addresses). The agent must infer when discovery of related properties is the right call over nearby tools.

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