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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: token cost of 5 with refund on no-estimate, possible maintenance unavailability, no-estimate conditions (too few comparables, undeterminable area), as_of county lag that makes results non-comparable across areas, and aggregation exclusions for fractional shares and non-market deeds. It also discloses the key methodological caveat that comparables follow register designation, not local zoning, so buildability is not asserted.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded with the beta marker, followed by addressing, then return shape, then caveats and cost. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information; the as_of/lag point is repeated in spirit and could be tightened.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (per m², per hectare, likely and wide range, confidence band, comparable count, as_of). Combined with the failure modes, cost model, and methodological limits, an agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret or discard the result.

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 parameter meaning is already documented; the description still adds real semantics by emphasizing the exactly-one exclusivity between coordinate and parcelId addressing, the cadastre-area default, and the caller's responsibility for landType. It adds little on includeComps and mpzpDesignation beyond the schema, so not 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 precise verb and resource ('Estimate an undeveloped plot's market value from comparable registered transaction prices'), adds the addressability model (point or parcelId), and scopes itself with 'Undeveloped land only' and 'NOT a certified appraisal'. That scope line effectively separates it from the sibling estimate_value and from the transaction-listing tools without needing to name them.

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 selection rules: exactly one of lat+lng or parcelId, area required with coordinates, landType chosen by the caller, undeveloped land only. It stops short of naming alternatives such as estimate_value or get_transaction_farmland for developed property or raw comps, so the agent must infer the routing for those cases.

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