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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the tool creates nothing, addToFabrica only starts adding after a person opens it, ambiguous queries return up to 5 candidates, state/county narrowing triggers a full check, and fallback results can be unconfirmed. It also states owner names are never returned and documents the 30-lookups-per-minute limit.

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 front-loaded with the core lookup purpose and then layers on ambiguity, fallback, and batch behavior in a logical order. It is dense but mostly earns its length; a few clauses repeat details already present in the schema descriptions.

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 complex lookup tool with no output schema, the description explains return fields, ambiguity behavior, fallback status, batch row structure, owner-name omission, and rate limits. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret likely responses.

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 explains query, state, county, and queries, including that each list item counts against the rate limit and that unresolved rows are returned. The description adds some semantic context about state/county narrowing and matching by parcel number, but most parameter meaning is already carried by the schema.

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 and resource: 'Look up any US land parcel by street address or parcel number (APN).' It also names the returned fields and distinguishes single-query lookup from batch behavior, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context: use query for a single lookup, queries for a list of up to 10 under one state/county scope, and how ambiguous queries are handled. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as search_land or get_land_property, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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