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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it names the underlying source (SIGPAC official registries), warns that values stay in the source language, and hedges availability ('when available'), which signals partial/null returns. It omits error behavior for invalid or non-rural references and says nothing about cost or rate limits.

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, each carrying distinct information: the first enumerates the returned data, the second covers geographic coverage and the localization caveat. The most important framing, what the tool returns, is front-loaded, and there is no 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema this covers the essentials: the returned fields, the data source, the geographic coverage gradient and the language handling. The one remaining gap is failure behavior for non-rural parcels or references outside the covered countries, which combined with 'when available' leaves return completeness slightly underspecified.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does add context for the country field by listing which countries are richest in data, but adds nothing on the reference format beyond 'official cadastral reference' already present in 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+resource ('Agricultural context for a rural parcel') and enumerates exactly what comes back: land use, main crop, slope, altitude, irrigation, NDVI and a reference crop price. That said, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_parcel_sigpac, which by name alone appears to overlap with the SIGPAC registry data this tool returns.

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 only implied: the phrase 'for a rural parcel' narrows the input domain, and 'Richest in Spain; also Portugal, France, Italy and Germany' hints at geographic applicability. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion such as 'use get_crop_catalog for price lookups by crop', and no alternative named among the many siblings.

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