MapLedger

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: what the response contains (counts of matching zoning areas and acres, the largest ones, a map link) and the input-mode choice between a fixed view id and free text.

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?

Purpose and the primary trigger are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the example list functions as disambiguating vocabulary rather than filler. The trailing view-id dump is dense but load-bearing, since it is the only place the valid view codes appear.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (match counts, largest areas, a point for land_at, a map link). Combined with per-city view ids and the two input modes, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination/limit behavior is unstated.

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 75%, and the description compensates for the gap by enumerating the valid view ids per city (home3, sb840, strok, spstr, etc.) and clarifying that 'request' is a plain-English alternative to 'view'. It does not explain the limit parameter or add meaning beyond the schema's enum for city.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('find land or lots in Austin or Nashville') and immediately grounds it with five distinct example needs. It also distinguishes itself from sibling land_at by noting the result contains 'a point to pass to land_at', so the agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 'Use when...' clause plus the example list gives clear trigger conditions, and it names the two invocation paths (ready-made view vs. plain-English request). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or explicitly contrasting with search_businesses, so routing is clear but not fully closed.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return payload ('the answer, the sources, a map link and a printable brief link') and the required input method. It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or data freshness, but those are less critical for a read-only query tool.

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 front-loaded with the usage condition and then efficiently states input and output expectations. It is somewhat long due to the topic list, but every sentence contributes relevant information and there is no filler.

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 7-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, required input forms, and expected returns. It omits explicit sibling routing and does not mention that city is required, but the schema and annotations fill those gaps sufficiently.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description only reiterates that an address or latitude/longitude can be given; it does not add meaning for city, homestead, property_class, or appraised_value beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

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 resource and scope: answering what can be done with a specific property or address in Austin or Nashville, listing zoning, capacity, short-term rental, tax, and flood risk. It is specific and not tautological. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from its siblings find_land and search_businesses, 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?

It opens with explicit usage context: 'Use when someone asks what they can do with a specific property or address...' and tells the agent to provide an address or latitude/longitude. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive, closed-world), and the description meaningfully supplements them with the coverage limitation ('Only Central Austin is covered') and a list of returned fields. It stops short of describing pagination behavior for large result sets.

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?

Three efficient sentences with the trigger front-loaded and filters and outputs packed in. The Central Austin scope is stated twice (opening and closing), a minor redundancy, but nothing else wastes space.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (name, category, address, website status, contact details, source link). It is complete enough for an all-optional-parameter search tool, though it omits any note on result ordering or paging.

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 60%, and the description largely restates the query example and the website/contact filters already documented in the schema (including the 'missing' definition). It adds almost nothing for limit or sector, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list of local businesses'), the selection dimension ('by kind'), and the geographic scope ('Central Austin, TX'). The unrelated siblings (find_land, land_at) pose no confusion, so no sibling routing is needed.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when someone wants a list of local businesses...') and adds filter conditions (no website, has phone or email). It gives clear usage context but does not state when NOT to use it or point to any alternative tool.

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