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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds value they don't carry: the operation is free (meaningful next to quote_*/buy_credits siblings), the result feeds a specific follow-up tool, and the coverage boundary is NYC-only.

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 short sentences with no filler; the free/NYC scope constraint is front-loaded and the chaining hint comes last. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still names the key output (BBL) for chaining. For a one-parameter, read-only lookup, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 the single param is already described as 'An NYC street address,' so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete format example ('40 Water Street Manhattan') that shows street-then-borough ordering without a comma, which is real guidance beyond the schema's generic phrasing.

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 verb and resource ('Finds New York City tax lots by address') and pins the geographic scope to NYC. It also distinguishes itself from the national property siblings in the same breath, so an agent can separate it from run_national_property_search without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('NYC only; for other US properties use the national property tools') and a downstream usage hint ('Returns each match's BBL for get_nyc_property'). The alternative is named as a class rather than the concrete sibling (run_national_property_search), which is the only gap.

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