list_sb9_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'read', specifies a geographic scope ('California-only'), and discloses that output includes block reasons for non-eligible parcels. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a list tool this is acceptable.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then adds scope and differentiation. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given 4 loosely-typed optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for correct use: scope, eligibility, and output characteristic (block reasons). It could benefit from explicit statement of default behavior, but the schema covers the defaults, so this is not a critical gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add semantic meaning to the parameters (e.g., no mention of how 'limit' or 'status' behave), so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource: active listings eligible for SB 9 lot split or duplex conversion, with per-parcel block reasons. It also distinguishes itself from sibling lead-list tools by stating it is a 'parcel-level buildability read, not a generic lead list.'

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 explicitly scopes usage to California and clearly states this is not a generic lead list, giving a strong 'when not to use' signal. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool or list explicit exclusion scenarios beyond 'generic lead list', so it falls just short of full guidance.

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