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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes parcel number, commune, and a link, but since an output schema exists, this is not substantial additional behavioral disclosure.

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 short, front-loaded as a question, and easy to scan. The second sentence partly restates return fields already covered by the output schema, but it remains efficient overall.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and basic return content. It leaves gaps around parameter semantics and alternative tools, which matters more here because the input schema has no parameter descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lat/lng parameters. It only says 'point on the map of Poland' and does not explain the latitude/longitude distinction, expected format, or coordinate order beyond what the schema's min/max bounds already imply.

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 and resource: it finds which parcel lies at a map point in Poland and returns parcel number, commune, and a link. It is clear and distinct from a general parcel lookup, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling find_parcel tool.

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 the phrase 'for a point on the map of Poland,' which tells the agent this tool is for coordinate-based parcel lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as find_parcel or search_location.

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