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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by identifying the cadastral feed as the data source and stating the per-call price, but it does not mention edge cases such as missing parcel data, GNAF ID resolution failures, or whether the returned value is the original cadastral area.

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 extremely concise, contains no filler, and front-loads the core semantic: parcel land area in square metres. The price is separated into its own sentence, making it easy to scan.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the core purpose is covered and the price is disclosed. However, the lack of parameter guidance and any usage comparison to sibling tools leaves the description just barely adequate rather than fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the gnaf_id parameter at all. The parameter's name suggests it is an address identifier, but the description does not say where it comes from or how it should be formatted, so the agent is left without meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns parcel land area in square metres from the cadastral feed, so an agent can understand what data it provides. It distinguishes this metric from area-related siblings by specifying the unit and the cadastral source, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as properties_basics_all or properties_valuation_land_values. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or recommendations about how GNAF IDs should be obtained first. An agent must infer when this specific endpoint is appropriate.

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