land_use_at_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the purpose, not any side effects, return format, limitations, coordinate system requirements, or error behavior. While 'Determine' implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly disclose whether it is safe, what it returns, or how it handles invalid coordinates. This is minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it is concise, it is so short that it borders on under-specification, though that is a completeness issue rather than a structural one. The structure itself is clean and readable.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, but it still lacks context to differentiate from the many sibling tools. It does not state what constitutes a 'land use designation' or how it relates to the other land use tools. With a low-complexity tool (2 params), the description could and should provide more context about point-based vs. area-based queries.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (lat, lng). The description adds no meaning beyond 'at a specific point', which only loosely implies coordinates. It does not mention the parameter names or clarify units, ranges, or coordinate order. Since the schema only provides type information, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Determine') and resource ('land use designation') with a location qualifier ('at a specific point'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like land_use_composition, which likely describe area-wide patterns, and land_use_search, which implies querying by criteria. However, it does not explicitly name or exclude any sibling tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for point-based queries, nor does it suggest using land_use_composition for broader areas. No context is provided about prerequisites (e.g., needing valid lat/lng) or scenarios where this tool would be the best choice.

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