Cadastral parcel at an address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does substantial work: it clarifies that contenance is the taxed whole-parcel area, not living space, and that the cadastre never records ownership. It also names the data source. It does not cover edge behaviors like no-match responses or multiple parcels, but the core semantic traps are disclosed.

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 efficiently structured: the main subject and key outputs are front-loaded, followed by valuable semantic clarifications and a source attribution. Every sentence contributes something, though the provenance line is minor and the phrasing is slightly dense. Overall well-sized for the information it conveys.

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?

The description lists return fields and clarifies their meaning, which is valuable given the lack of an output schema. However, it omits essential invocation context: how to choose between address and lat/lon, whether parameters combine, and what happens with multiple or unmatched parcels. This is a functional lookup tool, but an agent cannot fully anticipate calling behavior from the description alone.

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 only 33% and lat/lon have no schema descriptions. The tool description does not compensate: it references 'an address' but never explains how to supply one, how lat/lon relate to address, which parameter takes precedence, or what coordinate format is expected. The address parameter's schema description adds some meaning, but lat/lon remain effectively undocumented.

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 clearly identifies the resource (official cadastral parcels) and enumerates the distinctive outputs (idu, section, number, contenance), which separates it from sibling property/estimate tools. However, it relies on a nominal phrase 'Official cadastral parcel(s) containing an address' rather than an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'look up'.

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 contextual usage guidance by stating what the data is for (cadastral id quoted on deeds, section, number, official area) and explicitly excludes ownership information and habitable surface. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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