land_projects_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral quirks: some deeds return no rows, projected values are uninterpreted upstream data that can be centuries ahead, and the server does not treat them as a schedule. It also reveals the reference-resolution side effect and its request limit. This is unusually candid.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, empty-result behavior, data reliability, input constraints, side-effect request, and return contents. It is slightly long but not padded, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key operational context: empty results, non-interpreted future values, input alternatives, extra GET behavior, and included resolution fields. It stops short of describing the full response shape, but the most decision-relevant caveats are present.

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, and it does: it explains the mutual exclusivity of plot_id and deed_uid, accepts numeric or display-label plot IDs, and accepts original UID spelling. It could add examples or clarify validation, but for two simple parameters this is sufficient.

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 and resource ('List the work requirement rows') and scopes it to one deed uid, making the tool's core job clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like land_projects_active or land_projects_history, but the resource type is distinctive enough to infer the difference.

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 concrete invocation guidance: supply exactly one plot_id or deed_uid, and notes that original UID spelling is accepted. It also warns about the possible extra verification GET and the two-request cap. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the invocation context is clear.

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