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

"It writes nothing itself" restates the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false annotations and adds no new information. The one genuinely additive phrase is "with their sources," which tells the agent the response carries citations — useful since there is no output schema. Nothing is said about ambiguous-address resolution, error behavior, or result limits for an openWorldHint tool.

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?

Two short sentences: the usage trigger comes first, the retrieval mode second, and the safety note closes it. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 two-parameter read tool with no required arguments and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the lookup keys, and the nature of the return (facts plus sources). It stops short of explaining behavior when an address matches multiple lots or is not found, which matters because no parameter 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 coverage is 100% and both properties carry format examples (9-digit TMK, sample street address), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's "by TMK or street address" echoes the schema's own 'Or a Hawaiʻi street address' wording rather than adding new semantics about the either/or choice or what happens if both or neither are supplied.

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 specific resource (lot facts with their sources) and the two lookup keys (TMK or street address), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_parcel, which is the most likely source of confusion given the near-identical domain.

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?

"Use this when an agent is writing or checking a Hawaiʻi listing" gives a concrete triggering context rather than a generic 'get data' framing. It offers no when-not conditions and never names an alternative among get_parcel, get_clip, or search_lots, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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