rezonings_near

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the layer name, the Decision='App' filter, the surprising fact that the layer also contains deferred/withdrawn petitions despite its name, and the sort order (most recently approved first). This is rich behavioral detail beyond a simple 'find' statement.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by well-structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, including the example address and the caveat about deferred/withdrawn petitions, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description goes beyond it by enumerating the exact fields returned in each rezoning dict and the top-level response keys. It covers the alternate input modes, defaults, and layer filtering nuances, making it fully self-contained for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides thorough per-parameter meaning: address is a free-form string with an example, lat/lon are used together only when address is absent, radius_m defaults to 1600 meters (~1 mile), and limit defaults to 25. This fully clarifies the ambiguous optional parameters.

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 clear verb ('Find') and specific resource ('approved rezoning petitions near a point'), immediately distinguishing itself from sibling 'near' tools by focusing on approved rezonings and explicitly filtering to Decision='App'. It also names the exact underlying layer, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 two location input modes (address vs. lat/lon), the radius default with an approximate mile equivalent, and the limit default. However, it does not mention alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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