list_parcels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List', without stating whether the operation is read-only, whether there are pagination limits, or whether filters like bbox or tuman are applied automatically. It also doesn't mention any potential side effects or access requirements, making it insufficiently transparent.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately short for a simple list operation, but it could arguably include more contextual detail without becoming verbose. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 5 parameters, output schema, and sibling tools, the description is minimal but minimally viable. It doesn't explain when to use this tool or how it differs from siblings, and it lacks behavioral notes. The output schema covers return values, so that aspect is handled, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the input schema, covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description itself adds no additional detail about parameters, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'cadastral forest parcels', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_parcel or list_nurseries, though the plural 'parcels' and the action 'list' imply a collection operation. Thus it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_parcel is for individual parcels or that list_nurseries is for nurseries. There is no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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