get_cadastral_value

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it returns current value and cached history, and notes limitations on historical data. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or error handling.

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 sentences: the first concisely states the primary function, and the second adds a crucial limitation. No redundant words, and the structure is front-loaded with essential information.

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 the single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and its limitation. It provides sufficient context for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention error cases or value format.

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?

The only parameter, cadastral_number, has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not elaborate on the format, pattern, or example of a valid cadastral number, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.

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 clearly states the tool returns the current cadastral value and revaluation history for a Russian property by cadastral number. It specifies the resource (cadastral number), the action (return), and the context (tax base). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are lookup-focused.

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 mentions the tool is used for property tax base, providing a clear use case. It also notes that a full audit trail requires Pro tools or EGRN extract, guiding agents on when to consider alternatives. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like lookup_by_address.

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