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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content in detail (listing counts, median asking price, median price per acre for bare land 10+ acres, sub-regions), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether results are cached/static.

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 dense sentence front-loads the resource and then enumerates the payload, followed by a short routing hint. Every clause conveys return-value information that is otherwise undocumented, so the length is earned, though the enumerated median-price clauses make it slightly hard 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does so thoroughly for a simple read-only list tool. The main gap is the absence of any when-to-use framing relative to its two siblings.

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 100% and the single 'province' parameter is fully documented in the schema (codes, TERR, omit-for-all). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (Canadian provinces/territories with land for sale on AcreScout) and enumerates exactly what each entry carries, so an agent knows this is a reference/list tool rather than a search tool. It is distinguishable from search_land via the closing routing hint, though the verb 'list' itself is only implied by the tool name.

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 only usage guidance is 'Use a region's slug in search_land', which explains the downstream workflow but not when to call list_regions versus get_listing or search_land. Usage is implied (call this to discover slugs/regions) rather than stated with conditions or exclusions.

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