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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context: the data is 'live', and a point query returns every covering plan. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are shaped, whether plan_number and x/y are exclusive, or any error/limit behavior.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool returns, and the second explains the two query modes. The most important usage information is front-loaded and every phrase contributes.

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?

The description covers purpose, key outputs, and both query modes well. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should more explicitly state that at least one query path must be supplied, that plan_number and x/y are alternatives, and what the response format or edge cases look like. These gaps could confuse an agent invoking the tool.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds extra meaning by specifying the ITM coordinate reference as wkid 2039 and clarifying that x/y form a point-in-polygon query returning all plans covering that location. This goes beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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 concrete resource (a statutory plan from the iplan/Xplan system) and enumerates the returned details: status, dates, committees, approving authority, and unit counts. It also clarifies the secondary point-query behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the specific resource and output fields make the purpose sufficiently clear.

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 provides explicit usage modes: query by plan_number, or query by an ITM point (x/y) to retrieve all plans covering that location. This is clear context for when to use each parameter combination. It does not name sibling alternatives, but none of the listed siblings are obviously in the same statutory-plan domain.

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