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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: the returned link expires after a day and there is a hard free-tier cap of one clip per month. It does not state rendering time, latency, or failure modes, but the rate limit and link lifetime are the details an agent most needs.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and format, then the return, then the cost. The mid-sentence visual flourish ('the lot swinging left and right with its lot line on the ground') is slightly superfluous but sets expectations about the output.

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 correctly covers the return (an expiring download link) and the commercial limits. The one gap is that the schema marks zero required parameters, so an agent could call with neither tmk nor address; the description implies a TMK is needed but never states that at least one locator is required.

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 tmk and address are already fully documented (format, dashes optional, example address). The description only reiterates 'by TMK' and adds no syntax or alternative-parameter guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and artifact ('A looping 3D video (MP4) of one Hawaiʻi lot by TMK'), names the data source (USGS lidar) and the return type (download link). That is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which return parcel data, records, or lot lists rather than a rendered video.

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 explains pricing tiers ('Free: 1 clip a month. More with ParcelSheet Pro') but never says when to choose this tool over get_parcel or search_lots, nor what prerequisites the caller needs. The only usage hint is the implied 'need a video' context, which the agent must infer.

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