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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds facts annotations cannot express: public unauthenticated access, a 60 requests/min per-IP rate limit, and zero state mutation. Nothing here contradicts the declared hints.

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?

It is front-loaded with the substantive purpose first, but the 'when to use' sentence is a tautological restatement of the tool name and 'Parameters: municipality (required), zoning_category (required)' duplicates the schema verbatim. Roughly a third of the text does not earn 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?

With only two enumerated parameters, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description fills the remaining gaps: access model, rate limit, and a description of the returned structured JSON. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without an output schema.

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% and both parameters are enums fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the two names and their required status, adding no meaning about how municipality and zoning_category interact.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a concrete resource set (coverage, FAR, height, parking requirements) scoped to a Gauteng municipality plus zoning category. That is materially more specific than the tool name alone and lets an agent distinguish it from fee estimation or inquiry submission.

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 explicitly names the two siblings and says to prefer them for their respective operations, which is real routing guidance. However the positive 'when to use' clause is circular ('call this tool when you need to execute check_zoning_requirements') and gives no actual triggering condition, so the guidance is one-sided.

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