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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing that unsupported comparison models 'stay held' and by explicitly disclaiming what the observations do not certify. It omits permission requirements, error behavior for unsupported jurisdictions, and pagination/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?

Purpose and returns are front-loaded, which is good, but the legal-disclaimer tone ('do not establish personal savings, a verified market value, filing readiness or countywide certification') consumes roughly half the text and is denser than the operational guidance 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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the lookup scope, the shape of returned observations, and the limits of those observations. An agent could call it correctly; only error and unsupported-jurisdiction handling are left implicit.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the county_key scoping and conflict-rejection behavior. The description adds only the general notion of a 'supported address or parcel ID' and does not clarify how optional inputs like actual_sqft or notice_appraised_value affect the lookup.

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 (lookup of county assessment observations keyed by address or parcel ID) and enumerates the return contents (appraised/assessed amounts, classification, exemptions, building area/year facts). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_property_assessment or audit_property_tax, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative ('use X instead when Y'). The closest thing is a negative scope disclaimer ('conditional assessment comparisons do not establish personal savings...'), which bounds misuse but does not tell the agent when to pick this tool over its many assessment-related siblings.

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