get_code_sectionOrdinance text or a dimensional-standards table by citation, with its adoption and amendment dates. Accepts "402.03", "§ 402.03", "Duluth UDC § 402.03" or "Table 2-B". Tables that have not been verified against the rendered source page say so in the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation | Yes | e.g. "402.03" or "Table 2-B" | |
| jurisdiction | Yes | Jurisdiction slug, e.g. "duluth" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait: unverified tables are flagged in the response. However, it doesn't mention error handling, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some uncertainty.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then provides concrete examples plus a transparency note. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?
For a get-style tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains the return content (ordinance text/table, dates, verification status) and example inputs. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid citations or jurisdiction issues, but given the simplicity, it's reasonably complete.
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%, but the description adds valuable meaning by showing accepted citation formats (e.g., '402.03', '§ 402.03', 'Duluth UDC § 402.03') and indicating the response contains adoption/amendment dates. This goes beyond the plain schema examples.
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 retrieves ordinance text or dimensional-standards tables by citation, with adoption and amendment dates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_case and search_cases by focusing specifically on code sections and tables.
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 provides clear context on what the tool does and gives concrete citation formats, implying when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use search_cases for case law instead', though the sibling names offer some context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: retrieving case details, fetching code sections, listing jurisdictions, resolving a specific address/parcel, and searching cases. There is no functional overlap, and the descriptions clearly separate their purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_case, get_code_section, list_jurisdictions, resolve_jurisdiction, search_cases. The naming is uniform and follows standard REST-like conventions.
Five tools is well-scoped for a land-use index server. Each tool covers a core function without redundancy, and the count is neither too sparse nor too heavy for the domain.
The tool set covers the essential workflows: finding cases, retrieving case details, looking up code sections, and determining jurisdiction. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for parcel geometry or zoning map), but the core functionality is complete.