plss_locate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantive, non-obvious context: the precision levels reached (township/section/aliquot/lot), the warning that a centroid can be up to half a mile off, and divergence from the original plat near correction lines and water. It omits caching behavior, though the refresh parameter implies a cache.

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?

Purpose and return values are front-loaded in the first two lines before the caveats, which is good structure. The prose is slightly literary ('A tract is not a house') and leans on metaphor, costing a little economy without losing meaning.

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 enumerates the returned fields (centroid, bbox, BLM ids, precision) and warns about accuracy limits, a key gap for a coordinate tool. It does not address failure modes for unparseable or ambiguous land descriptions, leaving a modest gap.

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 all three parameters (state, description, refresh) are already documented in-schema with examples and defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('place a federal land description on the map, using BLM's PLSS data'), which clearly separates it from the reverse-geocoding sibling plss_from_point and the text-only parse_legal_description. It also enumerates what is produced (centroid, bbox, BLM ids, precision).

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 explicitly routes the downstream step to a sibling ('pass the centroid and the patent's date to county_at'), which is clear conditional guidance. However it never states when to prefer this over plss_from_point or parse_legal_description, so the sibling differentiation is one-directional.

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