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.