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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substantive benchmark rule (40% median surge threshold) and the statutory basis, which is genuine behavioral context. It does not disclose the return shape (boolean flag, ratio, classification), how the threshold is applied, or behavior for counties other than Hamilton/Knox.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core purpose stated first and qualifiers trailing. The statutory citation and threshold make it dense but every clause contributes to correct invocation; no filler or repetition.

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 small read-only computation with no output schema, the description supplies the key domain rule but leaves the output interpretation implicit. An agent knows what to pass in but not exactly what it will get back or how counties outside the named two are handled. Adequate minimum-viable coverage with a clear remaining gap.

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 schema already documents all three parameters including the county default of 'hamilton'. The description adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema provides; the mention of Hamilton/Knox counties mirrors the county enum-like values rather than extending them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Evaluate), a specific resource (an individual parcel's appraisal surge between reappraisal cycles), and the comparison basis (county benchmarks with the 40% median surge threshold under T.C.A. § 67-5-1701). This is far more precise than the tool name alone and distinguishes it from batch/audit siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the per-parcel surge check against county benchmarks for Hamilton or Knox County. The description does not explicitly state when to use this versus a portfolio-level or property-tax audit sibling, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., parcels outside those two counties).

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