state_property

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reassert read-only behavior. The description adds modest value by noting 'May include' to warn that data fields vary, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, or potential data gaps by state. This leaves some behavioral uncertainty unaddressed.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and uses no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information about scope or filtering, making it efficiently compact.

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 gives a solid overview of the tool's purpose and data fields, but with no output schema, it does not explain the return structure. It also lacks guidance on which of the many sibling state_* tools to use for related queries, leaving moderate gaps for an agent navigating a large toolbox.

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%, with each parameter already well-described. The description adds a useful summary of filtering capabilities (county, city, ZIP, address/owner search) but does not provide deeper detail beyond the schema, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('property assessment/tax data for a US state'), and lists example data types (assessed values, owner info, property details, land use codes). This distinguishes it well from other state_* data tools, which focus on different domains like crime, health, or GIS.

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 implies usage by listing filter options (county, city, ZIP, address/owner search), but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like state_gis_parcels or mention when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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