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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description's marginal value is what it adds: the return contents (evidence with documented/claimed/unknown/conflicting statuses) and a data-freshness caveat that availability must be confirmed with the source. That freshness warning is real operational context not present in the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope limits, then the freshness caveat. No filler, though the final caveat is slightly vague about what 'confirmed with the source' means operationally.

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?

No output schema, so the description does some work describing returned evidence statuses and unavailable record types. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is largely sufficient; only the provenance of the `id` value is left unexplained.

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 0% and the single required `id` parameter has no schema description at all; the description only implies the id selects a listing, without saying whether it is an internal listing id, where to obtain it (e.g., from search_land results), or its allowed character format. Contextual inference is possible but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource — 'Read one public land listing' — plus the evidence categories returned (documented, claimed, unknown, conflicting). The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from search_land and compare_land_listings, though no sibling is named outright.

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 clear exclusions: private drafts, rejected listings and demo data are unavailable, which prevents futile lookups. It stops short of routing the agent to search_land for discovery or to compare_land_listings for multi-record comparison, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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