get_overlays_for_apn

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately describes that the tool returns a collection of overlays and their relevance. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, authentication needs, or potential caching. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 a single concise sentence plus a brief contextual tagline, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and key overlays efficiently.

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 tool's complexity (multiple overlay types) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what overlays are returned and their practical significance. It could be more complete by briefly explaining the effect of the 'include_all' parameter or noting if any overlays are inactive by default.

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?

The description explains that the tool returns overlays 'by APN', adding some meaning to the 'apn' parameter, but does not explain the 'include_all' boolean parameter or its default false value. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate enough for the missing parameter documentation.

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 regulatory overlays for a parcel by APN, listing specific overlay types like SDA, TPA, and historic-district overlays. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_overlays_for_point by specifying the input type (APN vs point).

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 explicitly states it addresses 'the #1 multifamily-developer question' and relates overlays to ADU bonus and parking workflows, providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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