Pending rezoning petitions

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety and behavior profile is set. Description adds that records are 'currently in process' (a filter trait) but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what the petition link resolves to. Modest value beyond annotations.

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?

Two short lines front-loaded with the core scope, no wasted words. Could be slightly tighter by merging the field list, but structure is efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description's listing of returned fields is somewhat redundant with it. For a read-only spatial-filter tool, the description avoids the key gaps (pagination, ordering) but nothing here is critical. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 near, limit, and radius_miles are fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'citywide or near a location' loosely echoes the near parameter but adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., address vs lat,long) beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

Clear verb+resource: lists rezoning petitions currently in process. Adds scope detail (citywide or near a location) and the fields returned (petitioner, zoning, acreage, link). Distinguishes resource from siblings like get_capital_projects_near or get_311_requests_near, but doesn't explicitly compare against them.

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 ('currently in process, citywide or near a location') but gives no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternatives among siblings. An agent can infer a spatial/citywide filter, but routing guidance is thin.

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