ZoningVerdict

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns reviewed answers with citations, honestly reports absence, lists available topics, and never generates answers. This is sufficient for a read-only lookup tool, though rate limits or required permissions are not mentioned.

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 with three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, describing the return value, and setting a constraint. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context: what it does, what it returns (answer with citations), and its limitations. It could specify the output format, but it is adequate for a lookup tool with clear sibling context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that the tool looks up answers for municipality and topic. No additional parameter details are provided.

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 the tool looks up a published Q&A for a municipality and topic. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_district_rules or list_municipalities by focusing on reviewed answers. The verb 'look up' and resource 'published question-and-answer' are specific.

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 explicitly says 'Never generates new answers; confirm with the municipality before acting,' which guides the agent on when to use the tool and its limitations. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that returned rules include ordinance citations, source links, and last-reviewed dates, and warns that summaries are for information only. No hidden behaviors are omitted.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, then provide essential usage notes and caveats. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (rules with citations, source link, date) and includes usage constraints. It could mention pagination or result limits, but this is minor.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example values for 'topic', explicit guidance for 'district' (get from other tools), and explaining 'municipality' as a slug from list_municipalities. This context goes beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('published rules for one zoning district by topic'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that district codes should come from list_districts or resolve_parcel_district, not guessed.

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 clear guidance on when to use (to get published rules), how to obtain district codes, and a caution that summaries are not legal advice. It implicitly distinguishes from ask_zoning_question but does not explicitly list when not to use.

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

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is free and that summaries are reviewed for information purposes only, hinting at limitations. However, it could disclose more about data freshness or accuracy.

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 with five sentences that front-load purpose, then provide usage guidance and extra notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, related tools, and output content (district codes with name, category, summary). It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 100% and already describes the 'municipality' parameter as a slug from list_municipalities. The description reinforces usage but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 it lists zoning district codes for one municipality, including name, category, and summary. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_district_rules and resolve_parcel_district, making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (list districts for a municipality) and when not to (use resolve_parcel_district if you have an address). Also provides guidance on next steps: use codes with get_district_rules and not to guess codes.

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

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Mentions that coverage is for information purposes only, implying non-authoritative nature. However, does not disclose output format, ordering, pagination, or any limitations. Basic behavioral disclosure is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states function, second gives usage context and sibling comparison. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. It implies output fields (municipality, version, date) but does not specify structure. Slightly incomplete for an agent expecting precise output format, but adequate for a simple list tool.

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?

No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline of 4 applies. Description adds no param info since none needed.

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 the tool lists municipalities with pack version and last-reviewed date, and distinguishes its role from resolve_parcel_district. The verb 'list' and resource 'municipalities' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (no street address) and when to use the sibling tool resolve_parcel_district (with an address). Provides clear guidance on entry point.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the response shows how the district was identified and warns about potential disagreements near edges. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond a simple lookup.

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 with three sentences: main purpose, usage flow, and a caveat. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core function.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage chain, output disclosure, and a limitation. Slightly lacking on output format specifics, but overall complete for an AI agent.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'address' with description 'Street address, city, MI.' The tool description does not add additional semantics or format details beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool resolves a street address to its municipality and zoning district, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the entry point and referencing get_district_rules for the next step.

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?

Explicitly tells agents to use this tool when they have an address and then pass the returned district code to get_district_rules. Also warns about edge cases near parcel boundaries, providing clear when-to-use and cautionary guidance.

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