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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds substantial independent context: cost of 4 tokens, refund policy on not_covered and not_computed, the four coverage states, and the caveat that results are sets with no area so no share or prevailing category can be computed. It also disclaims legal-advice and buildability interpretations, which matters for a read-only tool whose output is easily over-interpreted.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling routing before the operational detail, and essentially every sentence carries distinct information (scope, output shape, coverage, cost, caveats). It is dense and long for a one-parameter tool, but there is little that could be cut without losing decision-relevant content.

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?

For a read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, what it cannot express, when data is unavailable, the four result states with billing consequences, and interpretive limits. An agent has everything needed to call it, price it, and interpret the response.

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?

There is one parameter and the schema documents it fully (cadastral id or internal UUID, 100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or behavior, which is acceptable at high coverage but is the baseline rather than added value.

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 resource (one land parcel's official land-use and soil-quality classification) plus a specific implied question (taking land out of agricultural use). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_parcel_report, so an agent can tell which tool answers which question without opening either schema.

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?

It states the single question this tool answers, says to use it only for that, and routes any other parcel question to get_parcel_report, noting that the broader report also includes this classification. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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