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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the description only needs to add operating context; it does so with default ordering by size, AND-combination of filters, and a caution that penggunaan is 'often empty'. It does not mention paging behavior or result caps beyond what the schema says, so it falls short of a 5.

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 core action and ordering, and each clause about filters or result fields carries information. It is a single dense paragraph of specialized vocabulary that an agent must parse, which slightly hurts skimmability.

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 exists, yet the description enumerates every returned field (id, nomorhak, holder, province, kantah, land use, aktif, expiry, area, bbox) and explains that total is the match count. Combined with the filter semantics and the HGU_get handoff, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

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?

Coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: pemegang matches anywhere in the holder name with examples, provinsi accepts a name or BPN 2-digit office code, and penggunaan values are enumerated (SAWIT, Karet, Teh, Tebu, TAMBAK) despite no enums in the schema. It omits any guidance on nomorhak, limit, and offset semantics.

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 ('Search current HGU ... rights'), adds scope ('long leases for plantations and other agriculture') and ordering ('largest first'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling HGU_get by pointing to it for decrees and boundaries.

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?

Gives explicit combination semantics ('Filters combine with AND; pass at least one') and a clear alternative route: 'Use HGU_get with an id for decrees and the boundary.' The agent knows both when to use this tool and when to switch to the sibling.

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