Build ArcGIS owner name query URL

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the query uses UPPER and LIKE for case-insensitive partial matching, and references a 'verified owner/taxpayer field' per county. This is sufficient to understand the tool's internal operation and side-effect-free nature.

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 sentences: first states the action and result, second details the query mechanism. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy or extraneous 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?

The description adequately covers what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. It leverages the context of county-specific fields. For a URL builder with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, it is nearly complete; minor omission is potential limitations (e.g., URL length, ArcGIS version compatibility).

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?

All three parameters have 100% schema coverage, but the description adds value by explaining the SQL-like query pattern (UPPER... LIKE) applied to owner_name, which goes beyond the schema's 'partial match, case-insensitive' description. This enhances understanding of how the parameter is used.

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 uses a specific verb ('constructs') and identifies the resource ('ArcGIS REST query URL'), clearly stating it builds the exact URL for owner name queries. It distinguishes from sibling tools (find_county, get_parcel_endpoint, list_counties) by focusing on URL construction for owner queries.

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 explains the tool returns a URL for browser or direct fetch, implying its use for querying by owner name. It also details the query pattern (case-insensitive partial match), giving guidance on behavior. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, though the context of siblings provides some differentiation.

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