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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing cost (1 credit), a data-visibility boundary (owner names and mailing addresses are never returned here), and the 2x credit tradeoff for getting them elsewhere — exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the id source, then cost, then the data exclusion — a sensible priority order in only a few sentences. The long parenthetical of id formats is dense but each format earns its place; minor tightening could still be done.

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 no explanation, and the description still flags the key negative case (no owner/address data). With one required parameter, cost disclosure, and precise id semantics, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates accepted id shapes (parcel korzy_id, plant:<id>, datacenter:<id>, utility:<id>, energy:<id>, capacity:<source>:<id>, property:<source>:<id>, poi:<category>:<id>) and instructs to 'pass it unchanged.' Only the maxLength constraint is left to the schema.

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 ('Open one record by the id') and pins the scope to a single record, which implicitly contrasts with the batch parcel-fields tool and the other siblings (lookup, ask, enrich). The enumerated id formats make it unmistakable what kind of handle this tool consumes.

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 clearly says when to use it ('by the id a Korzy result returned') and adds an explicit exclusion-plus-alternative: owner names and mailing addresses 'come only from the paid owner field group of the batch parcel-fields tool.' It stops short of naming sibling tools like lookup or ask as alternatives for other needs, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive routing.

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