search_parcels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real behavior: the register is near-complete but not live, empty results are ambiguous rather than proof of non-existence, and the call is token-free. The only residual friction is the muddled parenthetical 'a street address: list_parcels_in_area', which slightly clouds the routing instead of sharpening it.

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 the core constraint in the first clause, and the coverage caveat and cost note are compact, high-value lines. The nested parenthetical in the routing sentence costs a little readability but nearly every 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?

For a two-parameter search with no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: what comes back (district, area, GPS coordinates), how to interpret an empty result, and when to escalate to resolve_parcel with the full ID. No annotation or schema gap is left unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters ('q' prefix with min 3 chars, 'limit' 1-10) are documented inline, so the schema already carries the load. The description's example prefix '146518_8.01' duplicates the schema example rather than extending it, so this is baseline territory.

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 ('autocomplete land parcels by cadastral ID PREFIX only') and immediately bounds the scope by naming the operations it is not ('never by area'). The routing sentence names the two siblings that handle area/shape and full-ID resolution, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Explicitly partitions the task space: prefix search here, list_parcels_in_area for a place or shape, resolve_parcel for a coordinate or 'locality + number'. It even supplies a negative rule ('never by area') that closes the most likely misuse path.

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