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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the returned fields, an explicit negative constraint ('never owner data'), a cost model (1 credit/record, minimum 1, timeouts free), and the asynchronous fetch_queued/job_id behavior. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then requirements, returns, cost, edge case, and pagination in that order. Despite packing in a lot, each sentence conveys a distinct, non-redundant fact with no 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?

No output schema or annotations exist to offload anything, yet the description covers return fields, cost, async status handling, and pagination limits. An agent has everything required to invoke this correctly and interpret its edge-case response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for every parameter: state as a 2-letter code, county with format examples and variants, city as prefix, address as prefix with example, limit 1-100, and offset for paging. No parameter is left ambiguous.

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 specific verb+resource ('Search US property parcels') that is instantly distinguishable from the sibling query_permits, and immediately follows with input requirements. An agent knows exactly what domain this tool covers 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?

Gives explicit operational workflow: required state, optional filters, and the fetch_queued -> poll get_fetch_job -> re-search loop when an area isn't loaded, naming the exact sibling to call. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over query_permits, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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