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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key failure mode: an unmatched name returns registry=null with registry_match='none'. It also explains the input-conditional output composition. It omits the read-only safety profile, any external-API/latency behavior, and whether results are cached.

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 before enumerating the merged cards. Dense but each clause earns its place; the middle sentence is somewhat run-on with a nested parenthetical but stays readable and information-rich.

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 does describe the returned composition (Cards A/B/E/F plus city-level VATMAL) and the null/registry_match edge case. For a 7-parameter, zero-required aggregation tool it is largely complete, though it could clarify how partial/absent inputs degrade the response.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it maps the combined gush+helka to Card E parcel plans and the addresses array to Card F building plans, and clarifies these are the compound/city/plan identifiers. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 ('unified full picture for one Israeli urban-renewal compound') and enumerates exactly which data sources it merges (registry Card A, iplan Xplan Card B, VATMAL, parcel cards E, building cards F). This aggregation framing clearly distinguishes it from single-source siblings like urban_renewal_registry, planning_by_parcel, and vatmal_compounds.

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?

Gives clear context on how to invoke it by listing five identity routes (mispar, plan, city, name, gush+helka) and states the conditional data each route unlocks (gush+helka -> Card E, addresses -> Card F). It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer a lighter sibling, so no explicit exclusions.

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