find_land_entry_file

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent (a local lookup that produces query arguments, not a live search). The added disclosure that the tool does not itself perform the NARA search and instead returns arguments is valuable behavioral information beyond the annotations, though the exact return shape is only loosely described.

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 purpose and the patent-vs-case-file distinction are front-loaded, and the relevant caveats follow. It is dense but each sentence carries domain weight (provenance of dates, warrant assignee, the cross-server return contract), with no filler.

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?

Six parameters with no output schema, but the description compensates by explaining what the return is (arguments for search_records_advanced) and by grounding the ambiguous date/name fields. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around the exact output structure.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns above that: it clarifies that signature_date is the patent's date and not the entry/purchase/settlement date, that authority is as GLO gives it, and that patentee may be an assignee on a military warrant. These are semantic caveats the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a specific transformation: given a land patent, find the entry/case file, its location, and the search to run. The verb+resource (find the land entry file behind a patent) is clear and the domain is distinct from the geographic siblings (plss_locate, county_at). It stops short of naming a sibling to disambiguate against, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives real usage context: the patent proves a conveyance only on its signature date, and homestead/military-warrant cases require looking beyond the patent. Critically, it states that it returns arguments for nara-catalog-mcp's search_records_advanced and that this server cannot call it, telling the agent how the output is meant to be consumed. No explicit exclusion against siblings, but the routing guidance is strong.

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