Get an NYC zoning district

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds material context they cannot: the data is scraped from NYRezone and not verified against the Zoning Resolution or applied to a parcel. It also discloses the error behavior for an unknown code.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the returned fields, then the provenance caveat and error behavior. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained; the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would care about: data provenance, verification limits, and what happens with an invalid code.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a single parameter, the schema already carries the semantics; the description reinforces them with concrete examples including a composite district (M1-2/R6A), which is a modest value-add over the schema's own example list.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the HTML district summary ... for one NYC zoning district code') and enumerates exactly what the response contains (max FAR, heights, bonuses, lot counts, average built FAR). This clearly distinguishes it from list_zoning_districts (enumeration) and lookup_lot (parcel-level).

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 singular 'one ... district code' framing plus the unknown-code fallback ('returns the list of valid codes') gives a clear usage context and a self-recovery path. It does not explicitly name list_zoning_districts or lookup_lot as alternatives, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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