registry.resolve_jurisdiction

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive hints; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those hints. It explains point-in-polygon resolution, Virginia's independent-city versus county quirk, layered authorities that can apply simultaneously, and the requirement to surface requires_user_choice candidates rather than silently picking one. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 action and immediately follows with essential context about Virginia's jurisdictional quirks. Every sentence earns its place: input modes, the crucial XOR constraint, user-choice handling, and the no-geocoding limitation. It is dense but structured and avoids filler.

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 tool with no required parameters, an output schema present, and complex jurisdictional semantics, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input modes, geographic pitfalls, layered authorities, user-decision handling, and the known limitation about street addresses. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full semantic burden. It does: query is explained as a name, alias, or FIPS code; lat and lon are tied to coordinate-based point-in-polygon resolution; and the mutual exclusivity of query versus lat/lon is made explicit. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema properties.

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 states a precise verb and resource: resolve a Virginia jurisdiction from a name, alias, FIPS code, or lon/lat point. It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting this is the tool to use FIRST when a place or coordinate is given, and by explicitly excluding street addresses, which distinguishes it from potential geocoding or boundary 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it whenever a place is named or a coordinate is given. It also provides clear exclusions (not for street addresses), a critical input rule (query OR lon/lat, never both), and a decisive handling instruction for requires_user_choice candidates, leaving no ambiguity about how to proceed.

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