get_district_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the output categories and the input format, including the cadastral code prefix range '01-001 … 01-012', but it does not mention error behavior, response structure, or whether active construction projects are returned as a count or a list.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the tool's purpose and outputs first, then provides the key input-format detail, making it easy to scan and digest.

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 read-only tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the main return categories and explains the input code convention. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the exact shape of the projects field would have been helpful, but the description is still adequate for this low-complexity tool.

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 already fully documents the 'district' parameter with examples like 'Erebuni' or '01-005'. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that the tool uses the cadastral code prefix for the district and provides the valid range, which goes beyond the schema.

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 that the tool returns 'a quick statistical profile of one administrative district' and lists specific outputs: parcel count, building count, and active construction projects. It is distinct in content from siblings like list_construction_projects or count_features, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 intended usage is implied: use it when you need a statistical profile of a single district, using the cadastral code prefix. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is present but not fully developed.

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