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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool covers registered land parcels, has no date range, and is filterable by specific fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the resource and source, the second emphasizes the key constraint and filter options. Highly efficient.

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?

The description enumerates all key returned fields (parcel, land number, area/district, zone, land type, actual area, project, master project), which is critical given the lack of an output schema. It does not mention pagination or total count, but the schema covers limit/offset. Overall complete for a read-only search tool.

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%, with every parameter described in the input schema. The description mentions filters (land type, zone, project) that map to parameters, but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('Registered land parcels in Dubai') and the source ('Dubai Land Department'), and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (dld_search_buildings, dld_search_transactions) by focusing specifically on land parcels. The verb is implied through the tool name and 'filter', but not stated explicitly, so it misses a perfect 5.

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?

'No date range; filter by land type, zone or project name' provides clear context on the tool's filtering capabilities and a key limitation. This helps an agent choose this tool over date-range-based searches. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious.

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