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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output format and price, not any side effects, limitations, or response semantics. The lack of detail on how 'around' is defined or whether the operation is read-only leaves significant ambiguity.

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 brief, which is concise but at the cost of essential information. It lacks structure and does not provide any additional context beyond the core function, making it under-specified rather than efficiently compact.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what gnaf_id is, what 'around' means in terms of spatial extent, or any nuances of the GeoJSON output. The presence of an output schema may cover return structure, but parameter semantics and usage context are missing.

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?

The single required parameter gnaf_id is completely unexplained. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify its format, purpose, or relationship to the output, so the agent cannot infer how to supply it correctly.

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 cadastral parcel polygons in GeoJSON format for properties around a subject. This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on other property aspects, though 'around' is vague and could be more precise about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternative property context tools. There is no mention of criteria for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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