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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: ambiguous names return candidates, village zones are clipped to the boundary, regency plans are counted in full even if they cross boundaries, zone codes show their most common name, and large regencies may take a second or two. These details materially help an agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 dense but front-loaded with the tool's output and primary parameters. Every sentence contributes useful semantics, caveats, or performance expectations, and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: area by zone/sub-zone, luasWilayah, luasZonasi, shareZonasi, zone share basis, plans list, and zone code naming. It also covers ambiguity, spatial clipping semantics, and performance, leaving little an agent needs to infer.

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 coverage is already 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning: desa is an 8-digit BPN village code from Parcel_find_village, kabupaten accepts a regency/city name or 4-digit Kemendagri code, naming conventions distinguish kabupaten from kota, and ambiguous names return candidates. This goes well beyond the schema text.

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 clearly states that this tool returns zoned area by zone and sub-zone, largest first, for a village or regency/city. It is specific about the resource and output structure, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling Zoning_get tool.

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 gives clear usage context: pass desa or kabupaten, how regency/city names are interpreted, and what happens for ambiguous names. It also explains village clipping versus regency plan counting and notes that rural regencies may be mostly unplanned, but it does not state when to prefer this over Zoning_get or clarify behavior when both or neither parameters are supplied.

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