Check on-ramp coverage for a county

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the data is from a hand-refreshed table as of 2026-10-16, each answer carries that date, and the live answer is the on-ramp page. It also discloses the boundary that no fee amounts or owner data are returned.

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?

Front-loads the answer (what coverage statuses mean), then outputs, then data provenance, then input format and exclusions. It is dense with useful content, though the long first sentence lists many outputs and could be tightened; no sentence is purely filler.

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 read-only coverage-lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the status vocabulary (supported/notConfigured/unsupported), the fields returned for a supported county, data freshness/provenance, accepted input formats, and explicit exclusions. That is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.

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%, so the schema already documents fips, state, county, and ownerType with patterns, examples, and an enum. The description reinforces input form ('5-digit county FIPS, or a two-letter state with or without a county') and notes ownerType implications indirectly, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (check on-ramp coverage for a county/state) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: coverage status, deed/forms, witness requirements, owner questions, and on-ramp steps. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side siblings like get_property or find_parcel by naming the coverage concept.

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?

Explicitly scopes inputs (5-digit county FIPS or a two-letter state with or without county), and explicitly excludes two adjacent concerns: 'No fee amounts (ask_fabrica has them) and no owner data.' This routes the agent to the right sibling for fees and pre-empts misuse of this tool.

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