land_deed_by_plot

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses coordinate verification, the 'unverified, not proof of absence' caveat, the possible extra internal GET with a hard two-request limit, 'successful responses include plot_reference', and includes all three identities and freshness.

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 text is dense and the key guidance is front-loaded, but there is redundancy between 'plot_reference with numeric ID, padded label and deed UID' and 'all three plot identities and resolution freshness'. Two overlapping sentences could be merged without losing value.

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 provides everything an agent needs: accepted forms, uniqueness constraint, verification behavior, failure semantics, extra-request behavior, and response contents. For this medium-complexity tool, the definition is complete.

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%, and the description compensates by giving meaning to both parameters: plot_id can be numeric or a padded/unpadded label, deed_uid accepts original UID spelling, and the 'supply exactly one' constraint clarifies the schema's all-optional structure.

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-resource pair ('Get a public deed') and identifies two lookup paths: numeric plot_id and region-tract-plot display label. However, it also accepts deed_uid without distinguishing itself from the sibling land_deed_by_uid, which slightly blurs purpose and tool selection.

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?

It clearly says to supply exactly one plot_id or deed_uid and explains padded/unpadded label formats. It never mentions when to prefer alternatives like land_deed_by_uid or land_deeds_search, so the exclusion/alternative guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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