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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description earns credit on top by disclosing the 25-token cost per call and the Free-plan restriction on which ids are fetchable. It does not mention failure behaviour for unknown or expired ids, which would matter for a metered call.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the id provenance before the return inventory. Every clause carries information — the long enumeration is justified because no output schema exists to describe the response.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing each field class including the per-fact source quotes. Combined with cost and plan limits, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly; the lang semantics live in the schema.

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 100% and the id parameter already documents its pm_... format and search provenance, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline applies. The description reinforces the id's origin but says nothing about the lang parameter or how language selection affects the returned facts and quotes, adding no meaning beyond 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?

"One plot in full by the id ... returned" names a specific verb-and-resource pair and then enumerates exactly what comes back (data, commercial-use level, quoted facts, excerpt, agency link, competing agencies). It explicitly ties itself to claro_search_plots, so an agent can separate it from search or premises siblings without opening a 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?

The description establishes the prerequisite chain clearly: this is the follow-up to claro_search_plots, called with an id that search produced, and on the Free plan only ids your own searches returned are legal. It stops short of naming an alternative for lookups outside that chain or stating what to do when the id is stale, so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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