get_environment

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 only summarizes what is retrieved and adds no context about data coverage, return format, or edge cases. 'Get' implies a read operation, but nothing beyond that is communicated.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and enumerates the relevant overlay categories 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description identifies the key data categories, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves the response structure and any jurisdiction-specific behavior unexplained.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'at the address,' which adds minimal meaning to the addressId parameter. It does not explain how the address should be supplied, what formats are valid, or how it maps to address resolution.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a concrete resource: soil contamination, §3 nature, conservation, and coastal/forest protection overlays. This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like get_parcel or get_buildings.

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 implies when to use the tool—when environment-related overlays for an address are needed—but it does not state exclusions or route to alternatives. There is enough context to make a reasonable choice, but no explicit guidance.

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