get_parcel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by mentioning 'cached' OSM infrastructure proximity and enumerating returned data, but it does not disclose permission requirements, error behavior, or potential performance implications. It is a read-only fetch by nature, but this isn't explicit.

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 a single, compact sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and details following with a colon. Every clause adds information, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) and existence of an output schema, the description already enumerates the key return components and notes the cached nature of some data. It doesn't address error cases (e.g., nonexistent id), but for a straightforward fetch this would be handled by the output schema, so the description is largely complete.

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?

The schema provides only a required integer parcel_id with no description (coverage 0%). The tool description compensates by clarifying that the parameter refers to the 'integer id' of the parcel, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't give examples or range, but for a single simple parameter this is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('full detail for a single parcel'), and specifies the lookup by integer id. It also enumerates the included attributes (cadastral attributes, geometry, centroid, etc.), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_parcels or get_nursery.

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 clearly implies its use case ('full detail for a single parcel'), which contrasts with listing tools, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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