lookup_parcel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that address input 'will be geocoded', that lat/lon must be used together, and specifies the return shape: 'Dict with parcels (list of parcel attribute dicts), count, and a summary string.' This exceeds a minimal lookup description, though it omits edge-case behavior such as error handling or ambiguous match resolution.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a tool with five optional parameters.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, all parameter semantics, mutual-exclusion rule, geocoding behavior, and return structure. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of failure modes or what happens if multiple parcels match), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides only names, types, and defaults with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates with per-parameter details: free-form address examples, WGS84 coordinate system, the lat/lon mutual requirement, 8-digit PID format, and example values for pid and nc_pin. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up Mecklenburg County parcel(s) from the ParcelStatus layer.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on parcel lookup via multiple identifiers (address, lat/lon, pid, nc_pin), which differentiates it from geocoding and proximity tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Provide exactly one way to locate the parcel' and lists the four mutually exclusive input methods with their required counterparts (e.g., lat requires lon). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear and actionable.

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