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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: distances are approximate, measured from plot boundary, 0 means touching/overlapping, fixed search radii per category, only overhead high/extra-high voltage lines covered, and the two-state null/assessed=false semantics. It also discloses cost and refund conditions. This is exemplary transparency.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, categories, radii, boundary semantics, two-state interpretation, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly long, but the complexity of the two-state semantics and per-category radii justifies the length.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how to interpret edge cases, what is not covered, and cost. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the detailed description of the distance semantics and two-state values.

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% and the single parameter (transaction_id) is fully described in the schema with a UUID pattern and provenance. The description adds context by implying the transaction must come from a search result, but the schema already says that. Baseline 3 is exceeded slightly because the description reinforces the source of the ID and the cost implications.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('plot-by-plot surroundings profile for one transaction'), and enumerates the exact categories of nuisances covered. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_infrastructure_signals or get_transaction_roads by focusing on environmental nuisances and distances.

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 description explicitly states when to use it ('useful for due-diligence on nearby nuisances'), and provides detailed search-radius semantics. It also explains the two-state interpretation (null vs assessed=false), which is critical for correct usage. While it doesn't name a specific alternative tool, the scope is so clearly defined that an agent can route correctly.

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