zornade_parcel_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior: municipality matching is fuzzy, and the search returns specific fields (FID, municipality, sheet, area, centroid). However, it does not disclose how multiple filters are combined (AND vs OR), whether foglio and label are exact or partial matches, or what happens when no results are found. These are notable gaps for a search tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then immediately lists the return fields. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential context (purpose and return fields) but omits key operational details. It does not explain how filters interact (conjunctive vs disjunctive), nor does it clarify that only comune is required (though the schema does). The absence of output schema makes the listed return fields valuable, but the missing filter-combination logic is a significant completeness gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly labeling 'foglio' as sheet number, 'label' as parcel label, and marking 'sezione' as optional. It also reveals that the municipality field uses fuzzy matching, a detail not present in the schema. This extra semantic context pushes it above the baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search cadastral parcels by cadastral reference' and enumerates the search keys (municipality, sheet, label, optional section). The verb and resource are specific, making the core function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zornade_parcel_by_id or zornade_parcel_locate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have cadastral reference components (comune, foglio, label, sezione). It implies this tool is for searching parcels by these references. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, but the context is concrete and sufficient for an agent to infer the primary use case.

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