get_parcel_land_class

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

Annotations only say readOnly/non-destructive; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the four coverage states and their billing/refund treatment, the 4-token cost with refund conditions, the fact that results are sets with no areas so no share or dominant category can be stated, and a legal-advice disclaimer. Nothing about calling it correctly is left to inference.

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 the exclusion, then progressively deeper detail on returns, coverage states and cost — a sensible ordering. It is on the long side and the SETS/area explanation takes two clauses to land, but each sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description fully supplies the return contract: land-use categories, soil grades, the I-III protected-range flag, the city-boundary rule, and the verification date, plus the set-valued caveat and the enumerated status values. An agent can set expectations and handle every outcome.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including format examples and accepted ID forms, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no further detail on the parcelId itself (e.g. what happens with an unresolvable or non-held ID beyond the not_covered state), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — the official land-use and soil-quality classification of one parcel — and immediately scopes it to the agricultural de-designation question. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_parcel_report, which the agent can recognize without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('only for that question') and enumerates the adjacent topics that belong elsewhere (prices, flood, zoning, buildings, permits, surroundings, transport), routing them to get_parcel_report, which is noted to include this classification anyway. This is a model routing statement.

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