geo.find_zoning

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations by explaining that the tool reports the GIS layer's answer, requires repeating a screening_only warning, and queries both registered official sources while showing disagreements rather than reconciling them. These are meaningful behavioral traits not present in the structured metadata.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed immediately by the key caveats and sibling routing. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only screening tool: it covers input modes, jurisdiction scope, legal caveat, dual-source behavior, and a sibling alternative. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return fields.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies the two locator modes ('parcel PIN or lon/lat point') and the jurisdiction scope, but it does not explicitly state the at-least-one-of pin/lat/lon requirement or coordinate format details.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find the zoning district(s) for a parcel PIN or lon/lat point in a Virginia jurisdiction.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it answers zoning screening questions, not parcel-record lookups or legal determinations.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: use it for zoning screening only, and names an alternative with a routing condition: 'Use geo.find_parcel first when you need the parcel record itself.' It also tells the agent the result is never a legal determination, covering a when-not-to-rely case.

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