get_transaction_surroundings

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits: distances are approximate, measured from plot boundary, 0 means touching/overlapping, search is within fixed radii, and the 'two-state' semantic (null vs assessed=false) is explained. This adds significant value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint).

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 description is well-structured, front-loading the main purpose, then detailing constraints, state interpretation, and cost. It is slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place, and it avoids redundancy.

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, no output schema, and multiple siblings, the description is remarkably complete: it explains output semantics (null vs assessed=false), radius limits, cost, and intended usage, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to decide to call the tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and only one parameter (transaction_id) already described in the schema, the description adds value by clarifying the UUID's source ('from search_transactions / search_by_area / search_by_polygon result'), but does not introduce new parameter details.

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 retrieves a plot-by-plot surroundings profile for one transaction, listing specific distance categories (cemetery, landfill, etc.) and marking it as useful for due-diligence on nearby nuisances. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_transaction_*' tools by specifying the exact data returned.

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 explicitly frames the tool as 'useful for due-diligence on nearby nuisances,' providing clear context. It does not, however, directly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving inference to the agent.

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