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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the data vintage (as of October 19, 2026), that only 'active' properties are returned, and that results are paged.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then enumerates returned fields and closes with the filter/paging note. Every clause carries information, though the field list is long enough to be slightly heavy.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, address, bedroom mix, units, vacancies, restriction end date, etc.), plus data vintage and paging. An agent has enough to call it and interpret results; only ordering/sort behavior is unstated.

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 all five parameters are already documented with examples and bounds. The description only restates the optional town filter and paging, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (find), a precisely scoped resource (active USDA Section 515/514 properties in one county), the data source, and the returned fields. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the 538-program 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?

The description implies usage through 'in one county' and 'Optional town filter; paged,' which tells the agent the required scope and the narrowing option. It never states when to prefer this over another tool or when not to use it, though the sibling set (538 income/loan tools) is unrelated enough that no real alternative exists.

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