Find properties in an area

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that matching is based on centroid inclusion, that it reads a per-county property query table with a fallback to a derived geo index, and that it ignores NOAA/FEMA geometry. These details add meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though some edge-case behavior such as error handling or empty results is not covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the output and core filtering logic first, then the exclusive-or constraint, then the data-source nuance. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the main decision points: what is returned, how geometry is interpreted, which data sources are used, and how the two geometry parameters relate. Since there is no output schema, explicitly stating that it returns a set of properties is helpful. It could mention return format or empty-result behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic value by enforcing the mutually exclusive choice between bbox and polygon and clarifying the optional/inferred behavior of county, which goes beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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?

Description names a specific verb and resource: it returns the set of properties matching a spatial centroid predicate. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the bounding-box/polygon filter and by stating that no NOAA/FEMA geometry is used.

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?

Provides explicit usage instruction: 'Provide exactly one of bbox or polygon.' It also explains the conditional need for the county parameter depending on deployment. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when to prefer this over queryProperties/sumPropertyValueInArea, so it stops short of a 5.

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