get_overlays_for_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a read-only lookup operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, such as authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two short sentences that are front-loaded with key information. Every word serves a purpose—no fluff.

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 3-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks parameter details but is otherwise sufficient. The sibling context and example usage provide enough guidance.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain the parameters (lat, lon, include_all) beyond their names. While 'lat' and 'lon' are self-explanatory, 'include_all' is not described, which is a gap given the low coverage.

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 performs an overlay lookup keyed by lat/lon coordinates, explicitly mentioning it is the same as get_overlays_for_apn but with coordinates. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool and specifies the coordinate system (WGS84).

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 tells when to use this tool: 'Use when you have a project-site coordinate but no APN (map click, geocode result, etc.)', and by contrast, implies when not to use it (when APN is available, use get_overlays_for_apn).

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