zoning_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns zone code, description, and district boundaries, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify that the caller must provide either coordinates or an address, or explain behavior when both or neither are supplied.

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 sentences deliver the essential information without filler: what the tool does, the input options, the geographic scope, and the return content. Every clause earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple four-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is fairly complete — it covers purpose, inputs, scope, and returns. The main gap is that it does not explicitly state the operational requirement to provide either a GPS point (lat/lon) or an address, which is important for correct invocation and not obvious from the schema since only city is required.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does add some meaning by mapping 'GPS point' to lat/lon, 'address' to the address parameter, and 'Canadian city' to city. Still, it does not explain the relationship between parameters — such as whether city is required alongside coordinates or whether lat/lon must be provided together — leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 a specific action ('Look up zoning district information'), the resource ('zoning district'), the input type ('GPS point or address'), and the geographic scope ('Canadian city'). It also lists concrete return values, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like property_search or reverse_geocode.

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 communicates clear usage context: use this when you need zoning district information for a geographic point or address in a Canadian city. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for related but different lookups, so it stops short of a full 5.

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