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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (assessed value, market value, etc.) and the data source ('public assessor data via ATTOM'), providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with example queries, and every sentence adds value. No waste; it efficiently conveys purpose, source, and return data.

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 three simple parameters, thorough annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description sufficiently covers purpose, source, and return fields. Minor gaps like data freshness or geographic coverage do not significantly impact completeness for a tax-assessment tool.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (_apiKey, address1, address2). The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, though the example queries provide contextual hints. 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?

The description uses multiple specific verb phrases (e.g., 'Property tax / taxes on [address]', 'assessed value of [house]', 'tax bill for [property]') that clearly indicate the tool retrieves county tax-assessor data for US properties. It lists return fields (assessed value, market value, tax amount, etc.) and distinguishes it from siblings like attom_avm or attom_property_detail by focusing on tax assessment.

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 description provides example queries ('Property tax on [address]' etc.) that implicitly guide when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., attom_avm for market values) makes the use case clear.

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