Get Agricultural Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the upstream data source (SIGPAC), that price is only returned 'when available' (partial/optional output), that richness varies by country, and that field names come back in Spanish. It does not cover behavior when the parcel is urban or outside the supported countries, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three dense sentences with the returned content front-loaded, followed by coverage scope and a language caveat. No filler, though the final sentence about Spanish field names could arguably fold into the first sentence to tighten the block.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does — listing land use, crop, terrain attributes, NDVI and price. An agent can form a clear expectation of the response payload. It is slightly short on failure/edge behavior (unsupported country or non-rural parcel) and on whether price requires anything extra.

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 100%: both 'reference' (official cadastral reference of a rural parcel) and 'country' (enum with auto-detect on omission) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the geographic scope tied to 'country' but adds no new format or value semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (agricultural context for a rural parcel) and enumerates the concrete outputs: SIGPAC land use, main crop, slope, altitude, irrigation, NDVI, and a reference crop price. That distinguishes it from siblings like get_solar_potential or get_parcel, though it never names an alternative explicitly. Purpose is clear and non-tautological.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a rural parcel' and by the geographic coverage note ('Richest in Spain; also Portugal, France, Italy and Germany'), which helps the agent decide whether to call it at all. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance and no stated prerequisites (e.g. must already have a cadastral reference or use get_parcel first).

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