get_zone_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the analysis outputs (counts, percentages, density rating, violation warnings) that an agent would otherwise have to guess, since there is no output schema. However, it never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor how it behaves for a missing or empty zone.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what is measured, the second front-loads the workflow trigger. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the metrics returned and the moment to call it. The remaining gap is that the return shape (units, rating scale) and error behavior are only gestured at rather than specified.

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?

Only one parameter, zoneId, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with "ID of the zone to analyze." The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Analyzes") with a specific resource ("a zone's contents") and enumerates what it reports: object count, coverage %, planting density rating, and boundary violation warnings. That clearly separates it from siblings like get_zones or get_objects_in_zone, though the distinction from get_site_analysis is left implicit.

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?

"Use after placing objects to validate density and spatial relationships" gives a concrete trigger condition, which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_objects_in_zone for a raw listing) or stating when not to call it, so it lands at clear-context-without-exclusions.

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