uk_planning_checker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a verdict, applicable PD class, conditions, and flags, and adds the important caveat 'Indicative, verify with the LPA.' It doesn't detail data sources or error handling but provides essential behavioral expectations.

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 sentences deliver scope, proposal types, outputs, and a caveat without waste. The information is front-loaded and each clause adds value.

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 no output schema, the description does a solid job of listing return elements (verdict, PD class, conditions, flags) and key input flags. It could be more explicit about unsupported inputs or parameter formatting, but it provides a clear overall picture for a planning rules engine.

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 only 30%, so the description must compensate. It mentions key concepts such as listed building, Article 4, conservation area, and AONB (matching flags), and it lists proposal types. However, it doesn't explain parameters like extension_depth_m units, property_type values, or the meaning of 'location' beyond the England scope, leaving gaps.

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 a 'UK permitted-development (GPDO 2015, England) rules engine' with specific proposal types (extensions, loft conversions, change of use). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on planning/PD assessment rather than energy or structural topics, and specifies the geographic and regulatory scope.

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 establishes clear context: the tool applies to England under GPDO 2015 and to listed proposal types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or reference alternative tools for other jurisdictions or non-PD matters, so guidance is good but not fully explicit.

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