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

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world call, so safety is covered; the description then adds substantial behavior on top: result ordering, the meaning of overlap, shareOfParcel and shareOfOther, the sliver filter, and the ~11 m boundary inaccuracy for konservasi. It also explains what include_geometry changes about the response.

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?

The core behavior and the ordering are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema. The long run of parenthetical glosses on izin codes and ESDM naming is heavy, but deleting it would lose real interpretive value.

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 two parameters, no output schema and no nested objects, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: field meanings, ordering, filtering threshold, and accuracy limits. An agent can interpret a response without further documentation.

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 id ("Parcel id from Parcel_search") and include_geometry are already documented. The description reinforces include_geometry's effect (overlapping areas as GeoJSON) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource and the operation precisely: parcels, HGU rights, concessions and conservation areas overlapping a given parcel, returned largest-overlap-first. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like HGU_search or Mining_search, though it never explicitly names them and reads as a result description rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool does.

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 substantive interpretive guidance: both shares near 1 means two certificates on the same land or a duplicate, a small share is usually a mapping offset, and a Hak Guna Usaha parcel usually overlaps its own HGU record. It also states the <1% sliver exclusion and the ~11 m accuracy caveat, so an agent knows how to read results. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over Parcel_get or the *_search siblings.

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