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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive open-world read. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the pricing model (free within daily allowance, then $0.002 USDC per call via x402), which is behavioral context an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then input modes, then cost. Zero padding and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with full schema coverage and the pricing disclosure, the definition is largely complete; only explicit routing versus sibling constraint tools is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents lat, lng, postcode, geometry, and include_ended. The description's 'by UK postcode or lat/lng' merely restates the schema and adds no format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and what it returns ('Tree preservation order areas covering a point'), with a clear spatial scope. The resource name cleanly distinguishes it from sibling planning-constraint tools like conservation-area, ancient-woodland, and green-belt.

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 phrase 'By UK postcode or lat/lng' tells the agent the accepted input modes, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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