land_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by consistently describing the tool as read-only ('List') and disclosing the nature of the data (free, keyless, public). This implies no authentication or side effects, though it doesn't explicitly state the response format or that no state changes occur, which is a minor gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, specifies the resource with qualifying attributes, and states the purpose. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 parameterless, output-schema-less informational tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what information is provided (list of sources), their properties (free, keyless, public), and the rationale (transparency), leaving no obvious gap for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed—there is nothing to explain.

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 action (List), the resource (free, keyless public data sources), and the purpose (transparency). This distinguishes it from siblings like assess_land and find_land, which are operational land tools, making the tool's role obvious.

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?

Although it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the description makes it clear this is for transparency about data sources, which is distinct from the land-focused actions. The 'transparency' purpose implies usage when a user inquires about data provenance, making the intended context clear without ambiguity.

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