list_jurisdictionsAll 19 jurisdictions indexed: Gwinnett County as a container, unincorporated Gwinnett as a jurisdiction in its own right, and the 17 municipalities — with their codes and boundary sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact data set covered (all 19 jurisdictions, enumerated) and mentions that each includes codes and boundary sources, giving a clear picture of what the tool returns. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but its list semantics imply no side effects.
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 a single sentence that immediately states the main point ('All 19 jurisdictions indexed') and then provides useful detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, with no 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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and the composition of the result set (container vs. jurisdiction, municipalities). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and none are missing.
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 identifies the tool as a listing operation for jurisdictions, specifying the exact scope: all 19 jurisdictions, including Gwinnett County as a container, unincorporated Gwinnett, and 17 municipalities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_jurisdiction or search_cases by making it the canonical enumeration endpoint.
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 implies usage for obtaining a complete list of jurisdictions with their codes and boundary sources, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. However, its scope statement is clear enough that an agent would understand when to select this tool over the siblings.
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.