land_use_composition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for transparency. It states 'Get' (implying read-only) but does not disclose return value details, precision, units for radius, error behavior, or any side effects. This minimal information is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but may be too terse given the lack of additional context, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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?

With no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description should provide more context about return format, parameter units, and comparison to sibling tools. It currently lacks details about how the output is structured and what 'land use types' includes, making it incomplete for robust tool selection.

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 clarify parameters. It partially connects 'radius_m' to 'within a radius', adding meaning that the radius parameter controls the area. However, it does not explicitly explain lat/lng or specify other parameter details, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 ('Get') and resource ('percentage breakdown of land use types within a radius'), clearly distinguishing it from point-based tools like land_use_at_point and categorical tools like land_use_search. The 'within a radius' scope differentiates it from sibling aggregation 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?

Usage context is implied by the description ('within a radius'), suggesting aggregate land-use analysis, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives like building_class_composition or places_in_radius. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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