get_land_constraints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: data sources differ by country (Natural England vs EEA Natura 2000), it's a 'hard exclusion check', and 'No API key' is required. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or whether any special permissions are needed, leaving significant gaps for a screening tool.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, geographic/dataset specificity, and a practical detail (no API key). No fluff or redundancy, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only says 'screening' without detailing output structure or criteria. It does cover purpose, geographic scope, data sources, and the no-API-key aspect, but the missing return semantics and error handling make it incomplete for a screening tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds that 'country' determines which data source is used (GB vs EU), but this is also implied in the schema's country description. No new syntax or additional meaning beyond the schema is provided, so 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 description clearly states the tool performs 'land-constraint screening within a radius' and specifies 'hard exclusion check for PV/BESS siting', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_land_cover or get_agricultural_land. The verb 'screening' plus the resource 'land constraints' and radius scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 PV/BESS site screening via 'hard exclusion check', and clarifies geographic coverage (GB vs EU). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_land_cover, get_flood_risk, or screen_site, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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