get_plu_zoning

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the output (zoning types, constructible boolean, legal reason) and source, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or error handling. The tool is clearly a read-only query, but lacks details on behavior under failure.

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: the first delivers the core functionality and output details, the second adds source and restriction. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the output structure (zoning types, boolean, reason) and source. It lacks error scenarios or response format specifics, but is mostly complete for a simple query 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the 'num_pa' parameter. It implies it is the permit number ('au point géocodé du permis'), but no format or example is provided. The description adds minimal value 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 returns zoning information (PLU) at the geocoded point of the permit, listing specific zoning types (UA/UB, AU, A, N), a boolean constructibility verdict, and legal reason. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_risks or get_existing_buildings by focusing specifically on zoning.

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 limits usage to 'Plan Pro+ uniquement', providing a clear condition for when to use this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the restriction is helpful context.

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