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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the 50-lot result cap, that each lot links to a full sheet, the default of 25, and the ParcelSheet Pro ($22/month) access requirement.

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?

Three dense sentences: outputs and filters first, then the area input formats, then result cap and access tier. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 exists, so the description correctly carries the return shape (up to 50 lots with acres, zoning, flood, SMA and a link to the full sheet) and the auth/pricing gate. It omits what happens when no area input is supplied, which matters given required parameters = 0.

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?

With 13 parameters at 69% schema coverage, the description clarifies the disjunctive structure of the area parameters (TMK prefix OR radius around a lot OR address OR point) and groups the filters (zoning, size, flood, SMA), which the flat schema does not convey. It still does not explain lat/lon pairing or that no parameter is actually required.

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?

Specific verb ("Lists") plus resource ("lots") plus scope ("in an area") and the exact fields returned (acres, county zoning, FEMA flood zone, SMA). An agent can tell this is an area-based search rather than a single-parcel getter, but no sibling (get_parcel, get_clip) is named to make the boundary explicit.

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 discloses the valid area input modes (TMK prefix, radius around a lot/address/point) and the result cap, which implies how the tool is meant to be called, but it never states when to prefer this over get_parcel or get_clip, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the pricing note.

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