search_area_by_coords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a search (read-only implied) and mentions it skips geocoding, but does not detail output format, pagination, or any potential limitations such as rate limits or data freshness. The description is minimal but covers basic behavior.

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, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every word serves a purpose—no filler or repetition. It is an example of minimal yet effective communication.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context and purpose. However, it lacks details about the return format, potential output structure, or any caveats about data coverage. While it adequately describes when to use the tool, an agent might need more info to interpret results 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds context about why latitude/longitude are used directly ('skips geocoding'), which adds some value beyond the schema. However, it does not provide additional details about parameter constraints or formats.

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 searches for 'land use and zoning info near specific coordinates' and explicitly mentions it skips geocoding, differentiating it from the sibling 'search_area' tool which likely uses addresses. The verb 'search' and resource are specific, and the 'when you already have lat/lon' clarifies its exact context.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool ('when you already have lat/lon') and implies that if you have an address, you should use a different tool (likely 'search_area'). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it, which prevents a perfect score.

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