Get property query schema

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the operation is read-only ('Returns'), lists what will be returned, and adds a concrete caveat that some coverage-dependent fields may be NULL. It does not detail error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple schema introspection tool this is sufficient.

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 front-load the return value, state the intended use, and end with a caveat, with no filler or repetition of the name/title.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned, why it should be used, and a relevant nullability caveat. An agent can select and invoke it correctly for its intended purpose without needing additional context.

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 single county parameter is already fully described in the schema, including case-insensitivity and an example; the description adds no new parameter-level detail, so it earns the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Returns' and names the exact resource: column list, DuckDB types, and one-line descriptions for the 'properties' query table per county. It also ties the tool to the sibling queryProperties, so it is clearly distinct from related schema tools like getPropertySchema or getPlaceQuerySchema.

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 phrase 'so queryProperties can be written without guessing' is a clear context cue to call this before composing a queryProperties call. It does not, however, name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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