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

Since there are no annotations, the description must provide full behavioral context. It explains that the results are a 5-axis score and that the inclusion of the `zoning` parameter specifically alters the internal logic regarding the legal score calculation, which is a crucial behavioral detail.

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 concise, using two primary sentences to cover the core functionality, the variable input behavior, and the external context (map functionality). There is zero unnecessary language.

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 that there is no output schema, the description provides maximum context by defining the nature of the output (a Site IQ score across 5 specific dimensions). This allows the agent to fully anticipate the type of information 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value by providing examples of valid zoning codes (low1, res1, shop) and explaining the functional necessity of the parameter—it's required specifically to 'recalculate' the legal score.

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 is highly specific, stating it scores land based on 'Site IQ' and explicitly enumerating the five scoring axes (topography, solar radiation, disaster risk, legal headroom, climate). This leaves no doubt about the tool's core function.

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 provides a clear operational guideline regarding the `zoning` parameter: providing a zoning code triggers a recalculation of the legal score. This dictates how the user should utilize the optional input parameter to achieve different results.

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