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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds operational constraints not in the annotations (max 10 point pairs, max 0.05 degrees per bbox side) and names the returned fields (FID, municipality, centroid) despite there being no output schema. It does not explain behavior when multiple mode parameters are supplied simultaneously.

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 sentences, each load-bearing: the purpose, the three mode syntaxes with their caps, and the return payload. Mode information is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, and it covers all five parameters through the mode enumeration. It leaves open what happens if lat/lng, points, and bbox are supplied together, which matters given all five parameters are optional and the modes appear mutually exclusive.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the limits quoted in the description (max 10 points, 0.05 degrees, default 50) largely restate the schema text. The description's added value is tying parameters into named modes rather than per-field meaning, which is a marginal gain over the schema.

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 (find) and resource (cadastral parcels) plus the spatial inputs it accepts, which implicitly separates it from sibling parcel_by_id and parcel_search. It never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts their use, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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 three modes are enumerated with the exact input shape for each (lat+lng, points string, bbox string), giving clear context for which parameters to populate. There is no statement of when to prefer this over zornade_parcel_search or geocode_reverse, and no exclusion guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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