area_plans_at

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that it runs a point-in-polygon query, that overlapping boundaries can yield multiple matches, and that all matches are returned. It also lists return fields. It does not mention error conditions or data freshness, but for a read-only query tool, this is strong disclosure.

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 well-structured: a lead sentence stating purpose, a sentence about input alternatives, a behavior explanation, and a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

The description covers input constraints, query behavior, overlapping boundary handling, and return fields. Since an output schema exists, it needn't detail return values, but it does anyway. It lacks explicit error handling or permission info, but for a point-query tool with this level of explanation, it is nearly 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: address is a free-form string, lat and lon are used together if address is not given. This clarifies the relationship among parameters and their intended usage, going well beyond the schema's simple nullability.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb and resource: 'Find adopted area/small-area plan boundaries containing a point.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing specifically on plan boundaries and using a point query. The mention of overlapping boundaries adds specificity.

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 context for when to use the tool: when you need to identify which area plans cover a point. It also gives input alternatives (address vs. lat/lon). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it lacks the direct 'when-not-to-use' guidance of a top-tier description.

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