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

The annotations already signal a safe read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds meaningful behavior: coverage boundaries, the Texas non-disclosure impact on sale prices, the exclusion of owner names, and the fact that results include only valuation and characteristics. This exceeds what the schema or annotations imply.

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: the core action and return fields appear first, followed by coverage caveats and a pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no-output-schema search tool, the description covers the important return content, jurisdictional limitations, and the alternative for fuller data. It does not describe pagination behavior or default ordering, but those are partially documented in the limit parameter and are not critical for correct invocation.

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, and the description adds value by framing query as a 'street address fragment' and explaining the MD/TX state coverage and county narrowing behavior. It does not need to repeat the schema's per-parameter descriptions because those are already complete.

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 states a specific action ('Search property parcels by street address'), a clear object (parcels), and the exact fields returned ('assessed value, land use, and most recent sale'). It also distinguishes itself from parcel_details by directing users there for the full record, and it disambiguates from owner-name tools by stating owner names are not returned.

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 gives concrete usage context: statewide Maryland coverage with sale prices, Harris County/TX with appraised value only, and no owner names. It explicitly names parcel_details as the alternative for the full record. It does not mention other related siblings like parcel_coverage or parcel_sales_history, so some routing guidance is left implicit.

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