tree_canopy_at

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the multi-geography stacking, the selection of finest level as 'primary', the inclusion of all matched levels under 'by_geography', and the preference for Neighborhood Profile Area. It also specifies input modes and return structure, providing substantial behavioral detail beyond the bare schema.

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 concise summary, followed by focused Args and Returns sections. It is somewhat lengthy due to the detailed return field list, but each section serves a purpose and the structure aids readability. Earns a high score, though not perfectly minimal.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and a known output schema, the description fully covers input constraints, output structure, data source, and selection logic. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates with an Args section explaining 'address' as free-form, and 'lat'/'lon' as used together if address is absent. This adds meaning beyond the nullable/default schema properties, clarifying the mutual exclusivity and usage.

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 tree canopy stats for the area containing a location.' It clearly states the point-in-polygon query against a named layer, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other data types like watershed or area plans.

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 input guidance ('Provide either address or both lat/lon') but does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the data source description, but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are made.

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