parcel.lookup

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavior for different query types: composite ID is direct lookup, address uses fuzzy search returning top 5, APN is fallback. However, it does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences plus examples. No filler. Purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, description explains return fields sufficiently. However, it omits edge cases (e.g., no match), error handling, or pagination for address search. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly 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?

Schema already describes the three forms of the 'query' parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds value by indicating preferred form (composite ID) and specifying that address uses fuzzy search and returns top 5 results, which goes beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it resolves a single parcel by identifier, specifying accepted formats (composite ID, address, APN) and listing returned fields (identity, owner, valuation, geography, provenance). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning when to use parcel.compare and parcel.search.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (user names one specific property) and when not to use (ranking multiple parcels → parcel.compare; filtering by criteria → parcel.search). Provides concrete examples of invocation.

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