List declared Israeli VATMAL (ות"מל — preferred-housing) urban-renewal complexes from the iplan vatmal_mitchamim_muchrazim layer: tamal plan number, compound name, city, district, submitter, planned units, area, declaration date. Filter by city or tamal number. Use for the ות"מל fast-track pipeline specifically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Hebrew city filter (e.g. "רמת גן"). | |
| limit | No | ||
| tamal | No | VATMAL plan-number filter (e.g. "1001"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it clearly frames the operation as a read-only listing scoped to a declared layer. It also discloses the available filters and output fields. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but the schema's limit parameter mitigates the main gap.
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 front-loads the action and resource, then packs the output fields into a compact colon-separated list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.
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 simple optional-filter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the source layer, return fields, filters, and intended use case. Minor ambiguity remains about whether city and tamal combine and what happens when neither filter is provided, but these are small gaps for such a straightforward 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?
The schema already documents city and tamal, covering 67% of parameters; the description mostly rephrases this as 'Filter by city or tamal number' and clarifies that tamal refers to a plan number. It adds nothing meaningful about the limit parameter, so it does not go beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List declared Israeli VATMAL ... complexes from the iplan vatmal_mitchamim_muchrazim layer' and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on details, search, methodology, or statutory changes, and the 'fast-track pipeline' phrase marks its niche.
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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use for the ות"מל fast-track pipeline specifically,' which helps an agent know when to prefer this tool. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top tier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct lookups: search, detail, methodology, plan status, registry, recent changes, and top-ranked opportunities. There is some overlap in statutory status returns between get_compound_details, urban_renewal_registry, and planning_status_by_plan, but their descriptions clarify the source and scope enough to avoid major confusion.
The naming mixes verb-led patterns like get_, list_, and search_ with noun-style names like planning_status_by_plan and urban_renewal_registry. It is still readable and mostly predictable, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun convention makes the pattern less consistent.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a domain-specific analyzer server. Each tool addresses a distinct user need, and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
The surface covers core analysis workflows: searching, retrieving detailed compound data, checking official registry status, inspecting live plan status, seeing recent statutory changes, and finding top mispriced opportunities. Minor gaps exist—like a general list/filter tool or historical comparison—but agents can work around them.