zornade_parcel_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it states what the response includes, lists the available data sections, and explicitly discloses that geometry is omitted to keep the reply compact. This gives the agent useful behavioral context beyond the bare operation.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a useful behavioral note, though the long parenthetical list of sections partially duplicates the schema's 'include' parameter documentation.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides enough return-value context: top-level fields, selectable sections, and the deliberate omission of geometry. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention error behavior for invalid FIDs, but the invocation requirements are clear.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the section names and default value for 'include'. The description adds little beyond restating that sections are requested, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (returns an enriched cadastral parcel profile) and a specific resource (parcel by FID or GML ID). It distinguishes from the sibling search and locate tools by emphasizing exact-ID lookup, though it never names the alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'by FID or GML ID' implies the tool should be used when the caller already has an exact parcel identifier, and the sibling names suggest alternatives for geocoding/search. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus zornade_parcel_search or zornade_parcel_locate, and no exclusion criteria.

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