find_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 does note that sources are 'free, accessible online' and 'browser-only', and that titles are translated for Cyprus, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential delays, rate limits, or that results may be incomplete or inconsistent across sources. The mention of 'browser-only sources' hints at limitations but could be more explicit about the need for browser automation or potential unreliability.

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 relatively concise, with a clear first sentence and a paragraph of examples. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives illustrative cases. However, the line 'Browser-only sources are listed in browser_only_sources' is a bit cryptic and could be clearer. Overall, it is structured well, but there is some repetition of the source list that could be trimmed.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a decent job of covering the basics: what it does, sources, filters, and output fields. However, it leaves out important context like the nature of the 'browser-only_sources' (is it a parameter? a tool?), and it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or how to handle results. For a tool with 7 parameters, this is incomplete but not severely so.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not describe each parameter individually, but the examples illustrate how to use 'country' and 'state', and the description mentions filters for price and acreage. Since all parameters are optional and have defaults, this is adequate, but a bit more per-parameter detail would be helpful, especially for 'county' which is not mentioned.

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 function: finding land for sale from specific online sources, with optional filters. It also gives examples and mentions the output fields (price, size, location, photos), which helps the agent understand the tool's purpose. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like land_sources, but the verb 'find' and the detail about filtering distinguish it somewhat.

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 provides usage examples (e.g., find_land(country='CY')) and states the sources, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like land_sources or assess_land. The guidance is implied through the examples, but there is no clear 'when not to use' or alternative routing. Given the sibling names, an agent might not know whether to use find_land or land_sources without further context.

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