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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it names data sources and licences, discloses possible statuses ('ok, no_data or unavailable'), and states the quota cost. It does not cover authentication, rate limits beyond quota, or failure modes in detail, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph with no filler, and each clause carries functional information about a returned block, source, status, or prerequisite. The semicolon-chained structure makes it slightly heavier than an ideal front-loaded summary, but it is appropriately sized for the amount of functionality covered.

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?

No output schema or annotations are present, so the description must be self-sufficient. It explains the returned data blocks, sources and licences, status values, country-specific parameter requirements, and quota cost, leaving no material gap for an agent preparing the call.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning by tying latitude/longitude to 'from get_parcel' and restating the country-specific requirement pattern, which helps an agent know where to source coordinates.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Relief of the parcel computed over its outline') and enumerates the three data blocks returned: terrain metrics, protected-area membership, and climate normals. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_solar_potential or get_ground_motion without opening another 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?

It gives clear operational context: reference alone suffices in ES/PV/NA/PT/FR/IT/DE, while other countries additionally require latitude and longitude 'from get_parcel'. No alternatives or explicit exclusions are named, so it stops short of the exhaustive when/when-not guidance that earns a 5.

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