assess_land

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It enumerates the data sources (Open-Meteo, OpenStreetMap, FEMA), lists the scored dimensions (precipitation, growing season, water access, etc.), and explicitly notes that sources are listed and missing data is flagged. This goes beyond a simple summary and gives an agent reliable expectations about behavior and limitations.

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 moderately long but each sentence earns its place: purpose, input format, data sources and scoring criteria, and data transparency. It is well front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy or off-topic filler.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to describe the return structure. It covers all essential operational aspects: how to specify the target location, what data sources are used, what criteria are scored, and how missing data is handled. No critical gaps remain for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides no descriptions for lat, lon, or place (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that either place or lat/lon can be used, gives concrete examples ('Petaluma, California' or 'Lamoille County, VT'), and implies that lat/lon are alternatives to place. This adds genuine meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description opens with a specific verb 'Assess' and a resource 'US parcel', then explicitly names the two evaluation outcomes: micro-farming viability and dwelling feasibility. This makes it unmistakable how it differs from sibling tools like 'find_land' (searching for parcels) and 'zone' (zoning rules), which the description naturally distinguishes by focusing on assessment rather than discovery or zoning.

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?

It explains how to supply input (place name/address or lat/lon) with examples, which is useful, but does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The intended use case (assess a specific parcel) is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives, so guidance is partial.

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