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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it enumerates what is returned (district code, overlays, special districts, links to zoning text) and adds a material legal caveat, 'Not an official zoning determination.' It omits auth requirements, error behavior for unsupported locations, and rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and return contents, then the place constraint, then the disclaimer. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned fields is necessary and present, along with the coverage limits and disclaimer. Remaining gap is address input format and behavior for unsupported jurisdictions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents `place` thoroughly (borough names, the 'nyc' shorthand, and the rule that 'nyc' requires the address to name its borough or ZIP), but says nothing about the required `address` format or examples, leaving one of two required params undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Zoning district of a property') with explicit geographic scope (NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia) and enumerates the exact payload (district code, commercial overlays, special/planned development districts, links to zoning text). This clearly separates it from siblings like flood_zone_lookup and opportunity_zone_lookup.

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 constrains where it can be used by enumerating valid `place` values, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to an alternative tool when the property is outside those three cities. Usage is implied by coverage rather than stated.

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