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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on what annotations can't say: imagery may be years old, portal maps are digitised village sheets with offsets of 10 m or more, labels are omitted where they'd overlap, outlines are yellow on imagery and magenta on maps, and a scale bar sits bottom left. It also quantifies context cost per image, which is decision-relevant behavior not captured anywhere else.

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 purpose and the id-vs-query distinction before the detail, and nearly every sentence carries operational information. It is a single dense block with some run-on enumeration of basemaps and colors that could be tightened, but little genuine padding.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself: parcels in view as JSON with label, id, number, village, area in m² and labelled:false when a label didn't fit, followed by one JPEG per basemap. Combined with the provenance caveats, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it characterizes each basemap (satellite = Esri World Imagery, often a few years old; hybrid = same imagery with road and place names) and describes the radius default relative to parcel size versus point. It goes beyond the schema without fully documenting every parameter edge case.

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-and-resource statement: a map image centred on an Indian parcel (by id) or a point (query), with every parcel in view outlined and labelled. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling IN_parcel_search by naming it as the source of the id ('rj-123' from IN_parcel_search).

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 selection guidance among basemaps ('Pass several to compare, e.g. ["satellite", "streets"] to match buildings with street names'), explains id vs query usage, and states a recovery path when labels are dropped ('call again with a smaller radius to read them'). It also frames the cost tradeoff ('Each image costs about as much context as 1,000 words, so ask for what you need'), which shapes invocation choices.

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