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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: data provenance (USGS lidar, lot line on the ground), the breadth of findings (zoning, flood, tsunami, sea level rise, wildfire, lava), the quota limits, and the Pro paywall. Missing only auth/error behavior, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

It is a single long sentence but front-loads the core action ('A 3D picture of one Hawaiʻi lot by TMK') before the payload and pricing details. Slightly run-on, though nearly every clause carries useful information for selection.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by describing the returned content and its sources, plus quota/pricing constraints. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing, though error and fallback behavior for invalid TMKs is unaddressed.

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%, so both tmk and address formats are already fully documented with examples in the schema. The description reinforces the TMK path but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 specific verb and resource ('A 3D picture of one Hawaiʻi lot by TMK') and enumerates what the result contains, so an agent immediately knows this is a single-parcel lookup. What it does not do is explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_lots or get_public_records, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it tells you to identify a parcel by TMK or address and quotes free-tier quotas (1 lot/day, 5/week), which is a real usage constraint. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no direction on when to call search_lots or get_public_records instead.

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