zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly sets expectations: this is a general guide, not an official source, and it tells the user exactly what to confirm. This is strong transparency about limitations and output nature.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a second paragraph for an important caveat. It is compact and every sentence adds value, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 explainer tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, examples, limitations, and what to confirm. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and set user expectations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'code' parameter via examples and implies the 'country' parameter by listing jurisdictions. However, it does not explicitly define parameter names or the default country, leaving some burden on 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 a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('planning-zone code') with concrete examples for multiple countries. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but its scope is distinct enough that an agent can tell it apart from land search/assessment tools.

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 someone needs to understand a zoning code or farm-dwelling conditions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the caveat about not substituting official sources gives some context.

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