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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does add genuine behavior: UNKNOWN answers are not billed, results are page-cited, and there is a stated data freshness date and uptime figure. It still omits permissions, rate limits, coverage limits, and response shape, so it is partial rather than complete.

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?

It is short, but almost every token is marketing telemetry ('100% golden accuracy (78/78)', '100% uptime (24h)') rather than task-relevant information. Front-loaded text is the tool name repeated, not the 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?

For a two-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain accepted jurisdiction/zone formats and what comes back. It only gestures at cited output and data vintage, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly without guessing.

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 both parameters ('jurisdiction', 'zone') are bare strings with only length bounds. The description supplies no format guidance (city/county/state? zone code syntax?), required-ness, or interaction between the two, so it fails to compensate at all.

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 text restates the name ('get_zoning') and piles on quality metrics rather than stating what the tool returns. Only 'page-cited' and 'data as of 2026-10-26' hint that it retrieves zoning records, but a reader never learns it looks up zoning rules for a jurisdiction/zone.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given, despite close siblings like check_use_allowed, solar_siting_check, spray_check, and check_coverage. Nothing tells the agent how to choose between them.

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