get_jurisdiction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the return values: 'place name, state, Census GEOID, boundary type, and a likelyAgencies list.' It also discloses that address is 'geocoded automatically' and specifies the lat/lng coordinate system (WGS84). It stops short of detailing failure modes or the exact structure of likelyAgencies, but for a read-only lookup it is adequately 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 well-structured: a purpose paragraph, a usage paragraph, and a concise Args list. Every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, use cases, parameters, and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. Minor gaps include lack of error-handling details (e.g., what happens if neither/nor both inputs are provided) and deeper structure of the likelyAgencies list, but these are not critical for a basic lookup tool.

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 compensate. It does so thoroughly with an Args section: 'address: Full US street address (geocoded automatically)', 'lat: Latitude (WGS84) — use with lng instead of address', 'lng: Longitude (WGS84) — use with lat instead of address'. It also clarifies the mutual exclusivity of address vs. lat/lng, which is a constraint not apparent from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Determine which Census-defined place (city/town) contains a location, and which agencies most likely respond there.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_stations_near_address, which focus on station discovery, whereas this tool identifies jurisdiction and responders.

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 states practical use cases: 'Useful for routing, coverage reporting, or working out which local government and responders serve an address.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool versus the sibling station-related tools.

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