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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses a $0.25 USD cost, source provenance from the Planning Department, and boundary limitations the caller should expect.

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?

A single tight sentence with the cost front-loaded and no wasted clauses. Every element (price, scope, provenance, limitations) 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and provenance/limitations are noted. However, with 0% schema description coverage on four parameters, the definition leaves a real gap for a tool that costs money per call.

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% across four parameters (address, city, unit, state), so the description must compensate and does not. "Property point" faintly implies an address, but no format, required-combination, or default guidance is given for city/state/unit.

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 (Resolve) and resource (official San Francisco zoning and height-district context for a property point), plus what comes back (provenance, boundary limitations). It implicitly separates itself from neighbors like check_parcel_context or check_property by naming zoning/height districts, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (check_parcel_context, check_property, development_due_diligence) that an agent might otherwise pick. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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