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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains that coordinate searches return containing parcels (distance 0) first then nearest within radius, that results are closest-first, that state+village without a number pages the village's parcels, and that include_geometry is expensive and should be paired with a small limit.

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 purpose and alternatives are front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries operative information. The second sentence is very densely packed with state-specific rules, which costs some readability, but there is no filler.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and a complex multi-mode search, the description supplies the missing return shape (id, state, number, village, record, mapArea, bbox) and the ordering semantics. An agent can construct a valid, correctly scoped call for every supported state and query mode from this text.

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 would be 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema alone does not convey: which query formats pair with which state/village conventions, that Assam accepts coordinates only, and that geometry output is a GeoJSON boundary best kept to small limits. It does not explain how offset interacts with limit or whether limit applies to coordinate searches.

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 Indian cadastral parcels by location, ULPIN, or number in a village') and states it returns each parcel's whole record. It is clearly distinguishable from the only sibling, IN_parcel_image, which is named and routed to at the end.

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 enumerates every accepted query form (coordinates, MP ULPIN, parcel id 'ga-123', khasra number) and the per-state village identification rules (name in Rajasthan/Goa/Delhi, LGD code in MP), plus the coordinate-only restriction for Assam. It also gives an explicit alternative ('Use IN_parcel_image to see a parcel and its neighbours') and a caution to keep limit small when geometry is requested.

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