land_projects_active

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that no active project is a successful empty response, that reference resolution may add one verified deed GET before the target GET, and that a hard two-request limit applies. It even previews the resolved output contents, which is especially valuable without an output schema.

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 each additional sentence adds distinct value: empty-result semantics, input selection, resolution overhead, and output contents. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: input constraints, empty-result interpretation, request-limit behavior, and key output fields. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'all three plot identities' are and what 'resolution freshness' means, but nothing critical 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it does. It clarifies that exactly one of plot_id or deed_uid should be supplied, that plot_id may be numeric or a display label, and that the original UID spelling is accepted. It stops short of fully defining 'display label' or 'original UID spelling,' but the added meaning is substantial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('land project record'), and scopes it to 'the upstream reports as active for one deed uid.' This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like land_projects_history or land_projects_count by emphasizing 'active' and 'one deed uid.'

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 gives strong operational guidance: supply exactly one plot_id or deed_uid, and clarifies that a deed with no active project is a successful empty result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes when to use the tool clear.

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