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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses key behavioral traits: NIB is only unique within a village, coordinate search returns containing parcels first then nearest within radius, and no results mean BPN publishes no parcel there (not that land is unregistered). This is substantial added context.

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 information is front-loaded with the core purpose and query formats. Each sentence adds value (e.g., NIB uniqueness, geocoding advice, result fields). However, it is a dense single paragraph that could be more scannable with structure.

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 search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers query semantics, result fields, behavioral caveats, and alternatives (Parcel_get). Combined with annotations that cover safety, an agent has everything needed to call 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 meaningful detail: it explains the 13-digit village+NIB format, why `desa` narrows NIB searches, and how coordinates are interpreted. It also clarifies that `radius` applies only to coordinate searches. These additions go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find parcels by certificate number, NIB or location.' It also names the sibling tool Parcel_get for full records, so the agent can distinguish the search scope from retrieval. There is no ambiguity about 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 clear usage context: geocode addresses first, use a radius of 25–100 m for imprecise points, and pass `desa` to narrow a NIB. It also points to Parcel_get for full details. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the conditions for each query form are well explained.

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