get_zoning_at_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the operation type (point-in-polygon) and the return contents (land category and functional use), which is solid for a simple read-only tool. It does not mention edge cases like points outside the city boundary, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the question, the method, the outputs, and a common use case in two sentences. No words are wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, method, return values, and a representative use case. It could be more complete by hinting at behavior when the point falls outside the master-plan polygon, but nothing critical is missing for normal calling.

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 input schema already documents lat and lon as WGS84 coordinates with 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. It implies they form a location for the point-in-polygon test, but no syntax, units, or range details beyond the schema are provided.

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's purpose: determining land-use/zoning designation at a location via point-in-polygon against the city master plan. It is specific about the resource and the returned data, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from spatial siblings like query_near_point or lookup_parcel.

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?

It gives practical guidance with 'Also useful to answer is this area residential / industrial / green / protected,' which helps an agent recognize relevant queries. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for common cases.

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