Get Parcel History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 30-day snapshot granularity, the provenance-dependent start of history, the guaranteed-null cadastral value, the exact semantics of change_pct, country coverage, and the one-call cost. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only/paginated or whether the number of returned snapshots is capped, which are the remaining gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 core content is front-loaded in the opening clause (what a snapshot is and which fields it holds), and every following sentence adds distinct information: cadence, provenance, null-value caveat, change_pct definition, coverage, and cost. The fragment style ('One API call.') is dense rather than bloated.

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: snapshot fields, change_pct meaning, empty-list behavior, and the always-null cadastral value. What it omits is the ordering of the returned snapshots (oldest-to-newest) and any cap on the number of entries, which an agent consuming a time series would want.

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% and both parameters (reference, country) are already documented in the schema, including the enum and auto-detect behavior. The description repeats the country list ('Recorded for ES, PV, NA, PT, FR, IT, DE and AT') without adding format, syntax, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource (historical snapshots of a parcel's area and land use) and immediately resolves the ambiguity in its own name: 'The official cadastral value is not recorded yet (always null)', so an agent knows get_value_history does not actually return cadastral values. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling that feeds it (get_parcel).

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 a strong precondition and implicit usage rule: history 'starts the first time anyone looks the parcel up through CatastroGPS (get_parcel)', so a never-queried parcel returns an empty list. That tells the agent when the tool is useful versus when it will yield nothing, and names the related sibling, but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with get_parcel for current-state queries.

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