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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/no-destruction, yet the description adds real context: despite four proof-shaped parameters in the schema, it clarifies 'no proof' is required, and it defines a hold as a letter of intent rather than a sale. 'Read-only' partly restates the annotation, but the no-proof and hold-semantics disclosures are value beyond structured fields.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the domain clarifications follow. Efficient, though the 'land is never sold and no lot is occupied' clause is borderline tangential.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the semantic and usage context an agent needs, leaving only minor gaps such as when not to use it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters fully. The description only adds that no proof is needed, which indirectly explains why the proof params are optional; that is marginal added meaning on top of an already-complete schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lists the surveyed lots and which are held') and disambiguates the domain concept of a hold. It does not name a sibling tool by contrast, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiated from neighbors like hold_receipt or hold_trail.

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?

'Use it before asking to hold a lot' gives a clear trigger condition for invoking the tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a full routing instruction.

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