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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: include_owner doubles cost, ownership fields are source information rather than proof of title, and restricted values plus redacted zoning are silently omitted from results. The cost implication and the omission behavior are exactly the kind of disclosure an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences with one idea each: purpose and inputs first, then cost, then data caveats. Nothing is repeated and no sentence is filler.

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 4-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers input provenance, cost, and data-omission behavior. The one gap is failure behavior — it never says what happens if the supplied location does not fall on the parcel identified by korzy_id.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it explains the provenance of korzy_id, that latitude/longitude must lie on the parcel and bound the lookup, and that include_owner adds ownership fields at double cost. It does not restate the coordinate ranges, which the schema already enforces.

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 verb and resource ("Fetch a parcel's attributes") and names the key inputs, korzy_id plus a location on the parcel. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_parcels by saying the id comes from a prior search, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

It gives a real prerequisite: both korzy_id and the coordinates must come from a parcel address search or point lookup, and it flags the include_owner cost tradeoff. However, there is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_parcel_terrain or search_parcels, and no when-not conditions.

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