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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the subject and price, offering no information about output shape, read-only nature, side effects, or how 'near' is determined. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation safety hints.

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 short and front-loads the core subject, which is good. However, the price note, while useful, occupies the second sentence and is the only other content. The structure is adequate but lacks informative details that would earn a higher score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be describedcars. However, with many similar sibling tools, the description should clarify how this tool differs (e.g., properties_risks_all) and what 'easement near the parcel' means in practice. The missing usage context makes the definition incomplete for reliable tool selection.

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% for the single required parameter 'gnaf_id'. The description does not mention this parameter, its format, or how to obtain itcars. Given the low coverage, the description was expected to compensate but provides no parameter semantics.

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 'High-voltage power-line easement near the parcel' clearly identifies the resource as HV power-line easement information for a location, which is distinct from siblings like flood or bushfire risk tools. However, it lacks a verb (e.g., 'Returns' or 'Gets') and relies heavily on the tool name for clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus other risk-related siblings such as properties_risks_all or properties_risks_environment. The description does not state prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions.

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