Get Parcel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it enumerates the returned fields (reference, location, address, municipality, area, land use, outline), flags that outlines are only present when the official source provides them, and discloses the UK coordinate-only limitation. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behaviour for missing parcels.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and input modes, then the coverage caveat. The 31-code list is long and largely duplicates the schema enum, which is the one redundant element; the rest of the prose is dense and earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the condition under which the outline is included. Combined with the coverage and UK caveats, an agent has what it needs to call it correctly; only error/not-found behaviour is unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: automatic country detection from the reference format or point, the coordinate-only constraint for the UK, and a human-readable expansion of every enum code. That goes beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Look up a cadastral parcel' by official cadastral reference or WGS84 coordinates, with an explicit geographic scope (29 European countries plus two foral cadastres). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like search_address or compare_parcels.

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?

Clearly states the two input modes (reference or lat/long), that country is optional and auto-detected, and that the UK supports coordinates only. It does not name alternatives such as search_address or state when this tool is preferred over them, so it stops short of a 5.

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