plss_from_point

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety/external-service profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: results only exist in states that were once federal public domain. It does not mention caching or response latency, which the refresh parameter implies.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the use case and the failure condition. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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 usefully names the returned fields and the geographic limitation. It stops short of saying what a non-result looks like (null vs. empty vs. error) or whether results are cached, minor gaps for a read-only lookup.

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 description coverage is 100%, so latitude, longitude and refresh are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about coordinate format, hemisphere handling, or the cache behavior, 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 ('Name the Public Land Survey tract at a point') and enumerates the returned hierarchy (township, range, section, quarter-quarter). The 'from_point' direction is clear enough to separate it from the reverse-lookup sibling plss_locate, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('turn a map pin (a cemetery, a farmstead) into the description a land patent or tract book would carry, then search the land records with it') and a real exclusion: it returns nothing outside federal public-domain states. No alternative tool is named for the reverse direction.

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