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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is shape-only, fast, reports per-identity availability plus vintage, keeps historical geometry as the primary result, and requires no payment. These details help an agent predict behavior and side effects without contradicting the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the most decision-relevant qualifications. Every sentence serves a purpose: what it does, what it returns, how historical geometry is treated, what it does not do, and when to use it.

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 read-only annotation, 100% schema coverage, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential return concept: whether geometry is reusable and its vintage. It also addresses cost, scope limits, and non-goals. It does not describe response structure or edge cases, but for a preflight tool the essentials are present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the loc_id/loc_ids anyOf constraint. The description adds context about bounded lists and exact identity checking, but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: a fast shape-only preflight that reports geometry availability and vintage for exact loc_ids. It also distinguishes itself from actual retrieval operations by stating it is a preflight and does not resolve points or identity relationships.

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 timing guidance: use before get_geometry or an export. It also clarifies non-intended uses by saying it does not resolve points or explain identity relationships, which implicitly separates it from tools like resolve_loc_id_scope and loc_id_info. It stops short of naming all alternatives explicitly, so it is not a perfect 5.

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