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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description adds domain behavior instead: it queries an external soil survey dataset and performs a statutory overcharge computation. It does not say whether a miss on SSURGO lookup fails or degrades gracefully, nor what the audit report actually contains beyond the Exhibit G format hint.

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 that opens with the verb and resource before adding the legal citation and output artifact. It is dense but every clause carries information; the trailing '(Exhibit G)' is the only slightly dangling fragment.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and an analytical rather than simple lookup purpose, the description should say more about what an audit returns (detected class, overcharge amount, findings list) and how failures on soil-data lookup are handled. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the return shape and result semantics are left to inference.

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 seven parameters already carry descriptions and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond that — the '(Exhibit G)' reference loosely links to the 'format' parameter's html output, but it does not clarify optional fields like jurisdiction vs. county alias, acreage defaulting, or greenbelt_enrolled's effect on the calculation.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Audit') with a specific resource ('a parcel against USDA NRCS SSURGO soil survey databases') and names the exact findings produced: Greenbelt productivity misclassifications, soil capability Classes I–VIII, and present-use overcharges. The SSURGO/soil-capability domain makes it unmistakable against siblings like audit_parcel_topography or audit_fema_flood_hazard without needing to name them.

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 statutory framing (T.C.A. § 67-5-1008, Greenbelt present-use valuation) implies the scenario in which the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g., Greenbelt enrollment or acreage needed), and no routing to alternative audit tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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