find_sites

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile, and it does imply a non-mutating screen by describing it as 'terrain screening' over candidate footprints. It discloses the exclusion filters (structures, water, cliffs) but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, nor whether results are sampled on a grid.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, with no filler. The trailing clause 'using the user's blueprint standards' is vague and adds little, keeping it from a 5.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nested 'area' object, a sampling 'step', direction and paging parameters, plus no annotations, the description leaves the caller with almost nothing on how to construct a valid call. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side is seriously under-described.

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?

All 8 parameters (ref, surface, area, step, limit, offset, direction, allow_resources) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The only faint link is the exclusion of water/structures, which may relate to allow_resources, but that connection is never made explicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find candidate footprints') plus a concrete screening criterion ('without existing structures, water or cliffs'), which lets an agent tell it apart from blueprint/plan siblings. It is not a tautology and the scope is clear, though it never states what the returned 'footprints' actually are (tiles? regions?).

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?

'This is terrain screening' plus the instruction to plan rail approaches, grid alignment and utilities separately establishes an implicit boundary on what this tool is for. However, no sibling tool is named as the alternative for those excluded tasks, so the agent must infer the routing from the sibling list rather than from the description.

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