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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations ('municipality (fuzzy match)') and lists returned fields, but says nothing about result truncation, ordering, or what happens when no parcel matches.

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, front-loaded with the query keys and followed by the return shape; no filler. It could be slightly tighter by merging the field list, but there is no wasted prose.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (FID, municipality, sheet, area, centroid), which is exactly what an agent needs. The 'limit' parameter and pagination/result-cap behavior are left entirely to the schema, a minor gap for a 5-parameter 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 description coverage is 100%, with examples for label, comune, foglio and sezione, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description restates the same fields and tags 'sezione' as optional, adding little beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Search cadastral parcels') and enumerates the reference fields used for the query (municipality, foglio, label, sezione). It is clearly distinguishable from zornade_parcel_by_id in spirit, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with that or with zornade_parcel_locate, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by cadastral reference' and the required municipality, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing to the sibling parcel tools (parcel_by_id, parcel_locate). An agent can guess the context but must infer it.

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