land_use_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Find') but does not disclose return format, pagination, limit behavior, or whether include_geometry affects output. The description is too sparse to convey meaningful behavioral traits.

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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise, though it may be too brief given the tool's parameter complexity, but the structure itself is efficient.

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?

Despite the tool having six parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the optional parameters, clarify the meaning of 'subtype', or provide usage context. The completeness is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 adds meaning to 'subtype' and 'radius' but ignores 'limit' and 'include_geometry', while 'lat' and 'lng' are only implied. The description provides only partial semantic coverage for the six parameters, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of the optional ones.

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 ('Find'), the resource ('land use parcels'), and the scope ('of a specific subtype within a radius'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like land_use_at_point (point query) and land_use_composition (aggregated statistics), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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