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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: boundaries accurate to ~11 m, luas derived from the boundary, hutansisa is an estimate, and include_geometry toggles a GeoJSON MultiPolygon. It stops short of noting payload size or cost of requesting geometry.

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?

Purpose and id provenance are front-loaded, then the return fields are enumerated compactly with parenthetical glosses. It is a dense, long single block, but nearly every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description deliberately documents the returned fields and their units, which is exactly what an agent needs. Combined with the geometry toggle explanation, nothing material is missing for calling it correctly.

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, but the description adds provenance for id and clarifies that include_geometry yields the boundary as GeoJSON. It goes beyond restating the schema fields without fully specifying geometry output shape.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Full record of one concession by id'. It names the sibling tools that produce the id (Mining_search, Parcel_overlaps) and even covers HPH/HTI, so an agent can separate it from the search siblings immediately.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required id comes from ('from Mining_search or Parcel_overlaps'), which is the key routing signal. It does not state a when-not-to-use case or contrast against Parcel_get/Zoning_get beyond the shared id source, so it falls short of a full 5.

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