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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: explains that a replaced token ID resolves to the issued token, that fees are null when none assessed, that flag lists are empty when none apply, and that the host may decline a fullscreen request. Also discloses owner-name provenance rules (third-party parcel names never returned), which is unusual and valuable behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized by return content, lifecycle/fees, then parameter caveats. Dense and long, but for a tool with this many return fields and no output schema, nearly every sentence carries information; only mild verbosity in the enumerated field list.

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 exists, so the description must carry return-value meaning — and it does, covering lifecycle stages, fee/approval state, flag-list semantics, ownership/holder sourcing, and even what is deliberately not returned. Nothing material an agent needs to call this correctly seems missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema for tokenId (a replaced token ID returns the issued token) and reiterates/clarifies the display fullscreen behavior. Slug gets no additional treatment, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('Get the full record of one property on Fabrica') and immediately enumerates what that record contains. It also draws explicit boundaries against siblings: boundary geometry goes to get_land_boundary, deed grantor to get_land_trust_documents.

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?

Makes clear this is the aggregate/full-record tool and routes two adjacent needs to specific siblings (get_land_boundary, get_land_trust_documents). It does not explicitly say when to prefer narrower siblings like get_land_valuation or get_land_tax_status over this full record, so routing is clear but not complete.

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