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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: agreement text is only returned when includeAgreementText is true and is long, trust.agreementResource is the MCP resource for this token's own agreement, and owner names are sourced only from Fabrica's deed-grantor records, never third-party parcel data.

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 lead clause front-loads the purpose before the field enumeration, and the caveats (agreement text size, owner-name sourcing, title-search disclaimer) are placed after the core statement. The output inventory is long, but each item is decision-relevant rather than filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly, including the conditional agreement text, the MCP resource pointer, and the ownership-data sourcing limits. An agent has enough to call it and interpret results correctly.

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% and every parameter is already documented, including the 150 KB size warning on includeAgreementText. The description ties the flag to a returned field, which adds a little meaning, but largely restates the schema's conditional/default behavior. 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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Get the legal record of a tokenized property') and then enumerates the exact artifacts returned: trust, trust agreement, legal description, parcel identifiers, deed reference, uploaded documents. It is clearly distinguishable from get_land_property, which it names as the home of the holder's display name.

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?

Routes the agent to a sibling ('a holder's chosen display name is in get_land_property') and sets a scope boundary ('not a title search or title insurance'). It does not state an explicit when-not condition beyond those two notes, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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