get_agricultural_land

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool prefers post-1988 Natural England surveys, falls back to provisional ALC, and flags BMV risk. It also mentions 'No API key' and geographic coverage, providing useful context about data sourcing and access requirements. It does not describe the exact return format, but the behavioral traits are well covered.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds essential details about data sources, fallback behavior, geographic limitation, and authentication requirements. Every clause adds value, with no redundant wording.

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?

For a relatively simple lookup tool with three well-defined parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, how it prioritizes data, fallback behavior, geographic scope, and authentication needs. It leaves out the response structure, but given the lack of an output schema, the description still provides a robust contextual picture.

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 already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including types and descriptions. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail, only reinforcing that the country must be GB and coverage is England-only. This does not exceed the baseline for tools with full schema_description_coverage.

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 tool's purpose: providing Agricultural Land Classification for an English site. It goes beyond the name by specifying the classification system, the geographic scope (England only), and unique features like flagging Best and Most Versatile land risk. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_land_constraints or get_land_cover.

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 implies usage for agricultural land classification in England, noting 'GB input, England coverage only' which tells the user not to use it for other countries. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions relative to sibling tools. The guidance is mostly implicit.

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