uldk_by_point

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it returns parcel id, administrative division, and bbox by default; does not touch the project unless add_to_project=True; and explains CRS handling. No contradictions with missing annotations.

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 concise (three sentences) and structured with front-loaded purpose, then details on CRS, then behavior and alternative usage. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations but has output schema), the description covers all key aspects: return values, CRS handling, optional project modification, and parameter purposes. It is complete for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains x, y as coordinates, crs defaults to EPSG:2180, and add_to_project=True to materialize geometry. layer_name is implied but not explicitly described. Overall, adds significant meaning beyond schema structure.

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 tool's purpose: 'Identify the cadastral parcel under a point via ULDK' and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'map_identify_at_point' by specifying it is for parcels.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: by default it returns parcel data without modifying the project, and optionally can add a geometry layer. It explains CRS defaults and the add_to_project parameter. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the analogy to map_identify_at_point implies differentiation.

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