lookup_parcel

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 the read-style behavior and specifies return fields (code, region/district, subtype, area). However, it does not explain what happens if both code and coordinates are supplied, whether partial matches are truncated by the limit parameter, or how no-result/error cases behave.

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 carry the necessary information with no filler. The lookup modes are front-loaded, and the examples are compact and useful.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, invocation modes, and return fields. The main gap is the limit parameter's effect on prefix-based multi-result lookups, but the schema's default/min/max provide partial context. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly in most cases.

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 75%, with lat, lon, and code already described. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains full vs partial code formats, that a prefix matches a block/district, and that code and lon/lat are alternative lookup paths. The limit parameter still lacks semantic explanation, but the description compensates well for the main parameters.

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 identifies the resource ('cadastral parcel(s)') and the specific action ('Look up'), and it distinguishes two lookup modes: by cadastral code and by lon/lat. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like query_near_point or get_zoning_at_point, but the cadastral scope is specific enough.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: provide a full or partial code for parcel lookup, or provide lon/lat for point lookup, with concrete examples. It does not mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the intended invocation context is clear.

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