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

Annotations already establish safe, idempotent, closed-world reads, and the description adds real value beyond them: distances are straight-line (so location precision must be inspected), 'no match means unknown' rather than a negative result, overlapping condos return separate records, and include_owner doubles the parcel cost. Cost and data-quality caveats like these are exactly what annotations cannot convey. It stops short of covering rate limits or pagination semantics.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the result footprint stated first, but the body degenerates into clipped fragments ('No match means unknown. Overlapping condos return separate records. parcel_offset stops at 1000.'). The 'parcel_offset stops at 1000' line duplicates the schema maximum rather than adding behavior, so not every sentence earns its place.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the composite nature of the response (parcels, boundaries, plants, projects) with their limits. What remains thin is routing guidance versus siblings and the unmentioned parcel_limit, but for a five-parameter read tool with strong annotations this is close to complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains include_owner (adds owner fields, doubles cost) and parcel_offset (stops at 1000), which is genuinely useful. But parcel_limit is never mentioned and the offset note largely restates the schema maximum. Two of five parameters get meaning added, leaving a real gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Find') and enumerates exactly what is returned: exact parcel matches, mapped water/sewer boundary matches at a point, plus up to 3 treatment plants within 50 km and 5 data-center project points within 10 km. The point-lookup scope clearly separates it from siblings like get_parcel, search_parcels, and get_environment_context.

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 coordinate-based framing and the radius caps, so an agent can infer this is a single-point context sweep. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_parcels or get_parcel, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implicit only.

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