Find a US parcel

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), it discloses the rate limit (30 lookups/minute per client), that the tool creates nothing, that ambiguous queries return up to 5 candidates matched by parcel number only, that a degraded search falls back to Fabrica's own records flagged 'match: unconfirmed, matchSource: fabrica-index', and that owner names are never returned. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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-loaded with the core purpose and return fields, and every sentence carries operational weight (rate limit, fallback semantics, no owner names). It is one dense paragraph rather than a structured list, and a couple of clauses ('it starts an on-ramp only when a person opens it and decides there') are wordier than needed, keeping it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden: it enumerates the returned fields (address, place, APN, state, county, token ID, property link), explains the candidate/ambiguity shape, and defines the unconfirmed fallback semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: query accepts either a street address or an APN, and state/county are the tie-breakers that narrow an ambiguous result set to one parcel receiving the full Fabrica check. That interaction between parameters is not expressible in the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('US street address or parcel number (APN) to a parcel'), then enumerates exactly what is returned. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_properties, get_property, and check_coverage, which an agent can distinguish without opening any schema.

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?

It gives strong contextual guidance: address vs APN input, how state/county narrow an ambiguous query, what happens when the US parcel search is unavailable, and that links.addToFabrica only starts an on-ramp when a person acts on it. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. search_properties) or state when not to use this tool, 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.