get_transaction_landslide

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive. Description adds that intersection means overlap, not that the parcel is a landslide; two-state behavior (empty return when no data); cost of 4 tokens refunded when no data. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is thorough but well-structured. Front-loaded with purpose, then details, usage guidance, and cost. Each sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy. Could be trimmed slightly but still effective.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what the tool does, return data details, when to use, behavioral nuances, and cost. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage. Description adds context that the ID comes from search results, but schema already specifies pattern and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra semantics beyond what schema provides.

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?

Clearly states it gets a parcel-by-parcel landslide-hazard breakdown for one transaction. Distinguishes from siblings by noting that search_transactions and search_by_area surface worst-case inline, while this tool splits into parcels. Also notes that search_by_polygon does not include landslide inline.

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?

Explicitly say to use it after a search when a result shows a landslide risk. Describes when not to expect results (no mapped zone returns nothing, not a safety assertion). Also mentions cost and refund conditions.

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