dallas_property

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description honestly discloses a key limitation: the layer contains no appraised value or payment status, only a link to the external source. This prevents an agent from promising data the tool cannot return.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the crucial limitation and redirect. There is no filler, and each sentence earns its place.

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 covers search inputs, return fields, source provenance, domain boundary, and a fallback path for missing data. It is slightly light on output shaping or how limit/partial matching behaves, but no output schema exists and the essential invocation context is present.

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 parameters already carry full documentation. The description adds a brief framing ('street name or account number') but does not materially go beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a clear resource ('Dallas-area tax parcel'), identifies the key search paths ('street name or account number'), and lists the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its data-domain siblings like dallas_permits, dallas_crime, and dallas_tea_schools.

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 states when the tool is appropriate: when you need parcel data by street name or account number. It also tells the agent what this layer does NOT provide (dollar values, tax bills) and where to find that information (county appraisal district page), which helps route the request appropriately even though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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