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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the case count, date range (1970–2026), and the jurisdictional limitation. It does not describe pagination or response format, but for a non-destructive search tool the main operational constraints are disclosed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and packs in all essential scope details without repeating schema information or adding 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?

For a tool with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of what can be searched and the data boundary. It could be more explicit about return shape or filter combination behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for a read-only search tool.

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 71% and the description compensates by naming concrete search fields ('applicant, use, address, case number, type, year range or zoning district'), which also gives meaning to the undocumented year_from/year_to parameters. The jurisdiction limitation clarifies the jurisdiction parameter's intent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a resource ('11,848 zoning and land-use cases'), then enumerates the main search dimensions. It clearly distinguishes search_cases from the sibling get_case, which is for retrieving individual cases.

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 context about the tool's scope, including useful filters and the critical limitation that 'County records cover UNINCORPORATED Gwinnett only.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with get_case, but it provides enough boundary for when this search tool applies.

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