get_zoning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool first resolves the parcel against ParcelStatus if pid is not supplied, then performs the zoning lookup. It also warns that zoning may be None and mentions dependencies like 'Requires lon' for lat. This gives a solid understanding of the tool's internal behavior, though it stops short of detailing error handling.

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 front-loads the purpose, then explains the resolution process, followed by a concise Args section and Returns section. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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 is contextually complete for a tool with 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It explains the return format (dict with zoning, pid, summary), covers all parameters, and describes the lookup workflow. This gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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?

Given that the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: address example, coordinate system for lat/lon, the dependency between lat and lon, and the meaning of pid. This goes well beyond the schema's bare type definitions, providing essential usage semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get zoning classification for a parcel from Parcel_Zoning_Lookup.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinct purpose compared to siblings like lookup_parcel or get_planning_area. It also explains the resolution process, further clarifying its role.

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 by explaining the three accepted input methods (address, lat/lon, or pid) and the resolution workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide to use it when a zoning classification is needed.

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