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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content (price, size, price-per-acre, place, map-point precision, water, value check, listed date, price cuts, links), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It omits auth requirements, not-found/error behavior, and the id-vs-url precedence.

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?

One front-loaded sentence: purpose and lookup keys first, then the field list. The trailing field enumeration is long but each item earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 low-complexity single-record read with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the key formats and return contents, which is most of what an agent needs. The gap is the 0-required-params ambiguity (can it be called with neither/both, and which wins), left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both params. It does explain the id format (8 hex characters with a concrete example) and characterizes the url param (acrescout.ca/land/... page URL), adding real value. It does not clarify whether one or both are required, which is the more likely failure mode.

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 resource (one AcreScout listing) and the two lookup keys (8-hex id or page URL), and the singular scope clearly separates it from list_regions and search_land without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular 'one listing by its id' framing, which suggests a direct lookup rather than a browse/search. However there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs search_land (e.g., 'use after resolving an id from search results') and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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