get_zoning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does disclose that empty arrays indicate no overlay (not an error), which adds value. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or performance constraints, leaving gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately lists the outputs, and the second provides a crucial note about empty arrays and a cross-tool hint. No filler or repetition.

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 the single required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values (types of overlays and empty array handling). It also guides the next step using another tool. The information is complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'query', which is adequately described in the schema. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema (e.g., format constraints or examples), so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns specific types of zoning overlays (용도지역, 용도지구, 용도구역, 토지거래허가구역). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_district_plan by specifying the exact zoning categories, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a cross-tool recommendation (use korean-law MCP for 건폐율·용적률) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. Context such as when zoning overlay information is needed is implied but not formally contrasted with alternatives like analyze_parcel or get_other_law_designations.

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