get_setbacks_for_zone

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

The description notes that data is 'Sourced from SDMC tables,' providing a useful behavioral trait about data origin and implicitly that this is a read operation. With no annotations provided, this adds value beyond the schema and purpose. However, it does not address error handling or rate limits.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with no filler. It is optimally concise and 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the return format is covered. However, the description omits any explanation of how the optional parameters (lot_area_sqft, dwelling_units) influence results, which is a gap for an agent needing to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example format for zone_code but gives no explanation for lot_area_sqft or dwelling_units, leaving the agent to guess their purpose (e.g., whether they affect calculations).

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 identifies the tool as returning setbacks, lot dimension minima, FAR, height limits, and special-overlay rules for a San Diego zone code, with specific example formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_zone_info (which may be more generic) and get_overlays_for_apn (which uses APN).

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 states the tool is for a San Diego zone code, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. For example, it does not guide the agent to use get_overlays_for_apn if an APN is available instead of a zone code.

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