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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a useful caveat that the code is only returned 'when the council ships one,' and it notes the 3¢ cost, but it does not disclose error behavior, data availability handling, or other operational traits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential purpose, followed by the cost note. Both sentences earn their place, and there is no extraneous wording.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the main content and an important caveat. It could be more explicit about how it differs from sibling zoning tools, but that is not a critical gap given the clarity of the data returned.

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 has a single required gnaf_id parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain the parameter. However, 'at the property's point' and the tool's domain make it reasonably clear that gnaf_id identifies the property being queried.

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 identifies the tool as returning the primary zoning code at a property location, plus the human-readable name and broader category. It is specific enough to distinguish from zoning_overlays and development_all siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies use when an agent needs a property's primary zoning code, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. The tool's scope is inferable from the description, just not stated directly.

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