Check Opportunity Zone status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free, requires no API key, and auto-resolves address/coordinate inputs to 2010 census tracts, plus the Round 1 limitation. It stops short of describing the return format or error behavior, but covers the key traits for a simple lookup.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose immediately. It includes all necessary context without redundancy, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 single-purpose lookup tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the main use case, input formats, resolution behavior, and cost/auth. It does not mention the response shape or whether multiple inputs are mutually exclusive, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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. The description adds value by making explicit that address, lat/lng, and tract_geoid are alternative input modes and that address/coordinates are resolved to 2010 tracts. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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's purpose: to determine whether a location is in a designated Qualified Opportunity Zone (Round 1, TCJA 2017). It specifies the resource (OZ status) and the exact scope, distinguishing it from siblings like check_flood_zone and lookup_census_tract.

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 gives clear context on accepted inputs (address, lat/lng, or GEOID) and explains the automatic resolution to 2010 tracts. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., check_flood_zone) or provide exclusions.

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