get_planning_area

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it runs a point-in-polygon query, returns None if no polygon covers the point, and describes the resolved_address and summary fields. This goes beyond the input schema to explain what happens during execution and what the user can expect in return.

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 and appropriately sized. It opens with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition of schema details. The layout is easily scannable.

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 tool has an output schema, but the description still explains the return fields (planning_area, planning_region, lat, lon, resolved_address, summary) and provides context about the layers (e.g., 'one of Charlotte's 15 named community planning areas'). This makes the tool fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds meaning to each parameter: address is a free-form string with an example, lat and lon are used together when address is not given. This fully clarifies the schema fields, which only provide types and defaults without descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Look up the community planning area (and CCW planning region) at a point.' It uses a specific verb and resource, names the exact layers queried, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_parcel and get_zoning by specifying its unique point-in-polygon query against Community_Planning_Areas and Center_Corridor_Wedge.

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 usage context: 'Provide either address (free-form string) or both lat and lon.' It explains the input alternatives and the underlying query mechanism. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though the specificity of the purpose makes usage inferable.

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