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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read, and the description adds substantive behavioral detail beyond that: it is fast, shape-only, reports vintage, treats historical geometry as primary, treats successor geometry as an explicit follow-up, and requires no payment. This is rich, non-obvious context that helps an agent understand side effects and expectations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: scope, output type, historical vs successor behavior, exclusions, usage timing, and payment. There is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only preflight tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it: what it reports, when to call it, what it intentionally does not do, and cost implications. It does not specify the exact output structure, but the semantic output is clear enough for a tool of this simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its parameters, so the schema already documents loc_id, loc_ids, batch_id, and request_id. The description adds a useful 'bounded loc_id list' constraint and clarifies 'exact identity,' but it does not meaningfully expand parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a clear action ('check') on a specific resource ('geometry availability for loc_id(s)') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings: it is a shape-only preflight that does not resolve points or explain identity relationships. The title and description align, so an agent can reliably tell this from get_geometry and resolve_point.

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 explicitly says to use this before get_geometry or an export, giving concrete timing guidance. It also states exclusions ('does not resolve points or explain other identity relationships'), which prevents misuse when resolving points or tracing identity is the goal.

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