list_redevelopment_leads

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ranking by redevelopment score and inclusion of FAR headroom in output, but doesn't mention read-only behavior, pagination, or default filtering behavior. Lacks depth but gives some context beyond 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?

Single well-structured sentence conveys core purpose, criteria, ranking, and output. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy.

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 four parameters and no output schema, description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. Gaps like usage alternatives and behavioral nuances prevent a 5, but it's reasonably complete given schema covers parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds general context about the domain (FAR headroom) but doesn't elaborate on each parameter beyond what schema already states. Meets but does not exceed baseline.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'underbuilt parcels' and adds defining criteria (small/older homes, low FAR usage, sizable lots). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_adu_leads or list_sb9_inventory by focusing on redevelopment score and FAR headroom.

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?

Implies usage for identifying redevelopment opportunities, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusion criteria. No mention of alternatives even though sibling tools exist.

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