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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that: nothing about result ordering, how radius defaults apply, whether anchors can be combined, or what happens when no anchor is supplied — which matters given all 13 parameters are optional.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the use case before the parameters. It is dense but not padded; a slight loss for being one long run-on with no separation between the filter and anchor concepts.

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 13-parameter, zero-required spatial search with no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify the anchor set (it lists three of four, missing lat/lon) and whether anchors are one-of or combinable. It covers the common path but leaves the calling contract under-specified.

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 69% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description usefully groups them into filter dimensions versus location anchors, but omits lat/lon entirely, says nothing about how limit/radius_m interact with the anchors, and adds no syntax beyond the schema. This is roughly baseline value.

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?

States a specific action (find nearby lots) on a specific resource (Hawaiʻi lots) with the filter dimensions (zoning, size, flood, SMA) and anchor modes (lot, address, TMK prefix). It is clearly a spatial search, distinct from siblings like get_parcel or get_listing_facts, though it never explicitly says how it differs from them.

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 someone wants..." gives a concrete triggering scenario and enumerates the accepted search anchors. It lacks any when-not guidance or explicit routing to the sibling tools (get_parcel, get_clip), so it stops short of full alternative comparison.

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