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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered. The description adds genuine extra context: geometry is deliberately omitted to keep the reply compact, which tells the agent not to expect spatial data. It does not mention quota/rate limits or whether 'include' sections can be missing from the response.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and the key, followed by return contents and the geometry caveat. 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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the main response fields (municipality, area, cadastral reference, section data) and the geometry omission, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret it. Minor gap: it does not state response format or ordering guarantees.

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 both fid and include (with its full section list and default) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the ID concept and the notion of 'requested data sections', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Enriched cadastral parcel profile') plus the retrieval key ('by FID or GML ID'), and enumerates the returned content. This clearly separates it from the ID-based lookup vs the sibling locate/search tools that work by other means.

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?

The 'by FID or GML ID' phrasing implies the tool is used when an identifier is already known, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer zornade_parcel_locate or zornade_parcel_search instead.

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