list_adu_leads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the ordering behavior (ranked by ADU feasibility) and the returned data attributes, which gives a clear picture of the tool's output behavior. It does not mention potential side effects, but 'List' implies a read-only operation, and no contradictions with annotations exist.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, subject, ranking criterion, and key output metrics efficiently, and the acronym expansion for ADU adds clarity without excessive length.

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 list tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core return values and ordering. It does not describe default limit behavior or exact result format, but the schema covers parameter defaults, making the description reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains all three parameters (limit, minScore, excludeBlockers). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the overall 'ranked by ADU feasibility' context, which does not meaningfully enhance the schema definitions.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'parcels ranked by ADU feasibility', and specifies the output fields (estimated max units, buildable square footage, lot geometry). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sb9_inventory and list_redevelopment_leads by focusing specifically on ADU feasibility.

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 implies use when ADU feasibility ranking is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sb9_inventory or search_permits. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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