land_resources_taxes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so extensively: it documents the response shape, observed value patterns (taxes:null vs [], capacity:1000000), the distinction between real and fabricated deeds, that values are passed through unmodified, that a wire-type change triggers a malformed response, the routing failure when deedUID is omitted, and the reference-resolution side-effect with a two-request limit. Nothing about behavior is hidden.

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 a dense paragraph of about 150 words, much of it devoted to empirical observations and speculation about capacity and taxes. While front-loaded with the purpose and response shape, later sentences about probe results and 'that is either a shared cap...' could be trimmed without losing essential information. The lack of bullet points or whitespace harms readability, making it less concise than it could be.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it defines the response structure, explains the meaning of taxes and capacity, anticipates edge cases (fabricated ids, omitted deedUID, wire changes), and specifies identifier alternatives and the reference-resolution limit. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that plot_id can be numeric or a display label, that deed_uid accepts the original UID spelling, and that exactly one of them should be supplied. It also clarifies that deedUID is a path segment and that omission leads to routing failure. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types, though it does not fully describe each parameter's exact format or constraints (e.g., what a 'display label' is).

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resource-tax record') for a single deed, clearly distinguishing it from the many land_deed and land_resource sibling tools. It also immediately names the upstream endpoint (GET /land/resources/taxes/{deedUID}) and the response envelope ({status, data}), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool retrieves.

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 procedural guidance on identifiers ('Supply exactly one plot_id... or deed_uid') and error behavior, but it never explicitly states when to pick this tool over any land_deed or land_resource sibling. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, so an agent would have to infer context from the name alone.

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