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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and price, without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, what fields are returned, or any potential limitations. The price note is useful but does not cover the behavioral traits an agent needs to understand.

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 highly concise, with the purpose in the first sentence and the pricing note in the second. It front-loads the key functional information and avoids fluff. Although it is very brief, it is properly structured and every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given it has only one parameter and no annotations, the description is thin on context. It does not explain what development overlays are, how many might be returned, or how this differs from related tools. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or when it is the right choice without additional information.

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 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the 'gnaf_id' parameter. While the name hints at a GNAF identifier, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name itself. With no schema description and no high-level explanation, the agent is left without guidance on how to format or interpret this parameter.

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 states a specific resource ('Development overlays') and scope ('intersecting the property's parcel'), making it clear what the tool returns. It distinguishes itself from related siblings like properties_development_zoning_code (which returns a code) and properties_development_all (which likely returns broader development info). The verb is implied but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'intersecting the property's parcel' but does not explain the difference from other development-related tools or provide any selection criteria. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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