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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output shape (polygons with band summaries) but discloses no behavioral traits such as coordinate system, units, assumptions about suburb_name, error behavior, or whether the result is current-only. Minimal output content is mentioned, but richer behavioral context is missing.

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 a single, compact noun phrase with no filler. It front-loads the core resource and adds the 'band summaries' qualifier efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has no annotations, one required parameter with 0% schema coverage, and a description that does not explain what 'band summaries' means or how the data is structured spatially. The presence of an output schema helps, but the missing usage context and parameter guidance make this incomplete for confident invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention suburb_name or clarify its format, validity requirements, or relationship to the output. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no value beyond the raw schema and therefore does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific resource: 'Height-of-building and floor-space-ratio control polygons with band summaries.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like zoning_overlays or zoning_map. However, it lacks a verb (e.g., 'Get' or 'Return') and reads as a noun phrase, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling development tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer selection solely from the name and description. This is a clear gap for a tool within a large sibling cluster.

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