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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them — the subscription gate — but says nothing about return volume, pagination, or coverage limits for a parcel with many permits and notices. With no output schema, more behavioral detail would help.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource comes first and the constraint second. It is telegraphic rather than polished, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple read-only lookup whose schema is fully documented, the description is adequate on scope and pricing but silent on the address alternative, on whether either parameter is required, and on result size. A caller passing an address instead of a TMK gets no confirmation from the description that this is valid.

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 both tmk and address are fully documented with format examples in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond 'one TMK' and notably omits that address is an accepted alternative identifier, leaving the baseline 3.

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 names a specific resource set (county tax sale notices and building permits) scoped to a single parcel, which is concrete enough for an agent to know what comes back. However, it never contrasts itself with the siblings get_parcel, get_clip, or search_lots, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

'ParcelSheet Pro ($22 a month) only' is a real access precondition that most tools hide, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and no statement about what happens if the caller lacks the subscription. Usage is only implied from the resource description.

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