land_deed_by_plot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well: it discloses the verification step, the two-request limit, the meaning of empty/mismatched resolution, and the contents of successful populated responses (plot_reference with numeric ID, padded label, deed UID). It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but 'Get a public deed' strongly implies a safe read. Minor gap: no mention of error formats or rate limits beyond the two-request limit.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and then layering identifier formats, resolution behavior, and response contents. Every sentence adds information. It is slightly long, but the complexity of the identifier resolution justifies the length. No wasted words.

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 tool with 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input formats, resolution behavior, response contents, and a caveat about empty results. The only missing piece is explicit error/status behavior for invalid inputs, but the description already exceeds what is typical for this API family.

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. It does: it explains that plot_id can be a numeric ID or a display label (padded or unpadded, with examples), and that deed_uid is an alternative identifier. It also explains what the resolved output contains. It doesn't give exact regex patterns for labels, but the examples and the 'padded or unpadded' note provide enough semantic meaning for an agent to construct valid inputs.

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 ('Get') and resource ('public deed'), and precisely defines the accepted identifiers: numeric plot_id or region-tract-plot display label, padded or unpadded. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling land_deed_by_uid by explicitly accepting deed_uid as an alternative input, making the tool's scope clear.

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: supply exactly one of plot_id (numeric or display label) or deed_uid, and notes that the original UID spelling is also accepted. It also explains the resolution behavior (one verified deed GET before the target GET, hard two-request limit) and clarifies that empty or mismatched label resolution is unverified, not proof of non-existence. This is strong when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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