get_parcel_by_coordinates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose one important trait: a hard geographic restriction that causes refusal for out-of-Poland locations. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what a refusal looks like (error vs. empty result), or what happens for coordinates inside Poland with no parcel.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the constraint; nothing is wasted. The phrase 'refused for a garden placed outside Poland' is slightly awkward and mixes 'garden' with 'parcel', but the meaning survives.

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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the input and one constraint but leaves the payload opaque — 'parcel information' could mean geometry, owner, ID, or address. Since no output schema exists, that vagueness is a real gap for an agent deciding whether this call answers its question.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already document 'WGS84' lat/lon, so the description's coordinate mention is largely redundant. No additional meaning such as accepted ranges, precision, or decimal-format expectations is added.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('parcel information') and pins the lookup key to WGS84 lat/lon, which implicitly separates it from get_parcel_by_id and get_parcel_by_address. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is a clear when-not condition: the tool refuses requests outside Poland. However, it gives no guidance on choosing this over get_parcel_by_id, get_parcel_by_address, or geocode_address, leaving the agent to infer routing from the input type alone.

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