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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: historical geometry is the primary result, a current successor is only an explicit follow-up, and the call is a fast shape-only preflight. It also notes no payment is required, which is useful beyond 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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it reports, primary-result behavior, exclusions, and when to use it. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only preflight with two documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned, what is not returned, when to call it, and what constraints apply to the input.

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 both parameters clearly. The tool description adds the 'bounded' qualifier and reinforces the single-vs-list choice, which helps an agent select the correct argument shape without opening the schema.

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?

States a specific action ('shape-only preflight'), a specific resource ('geometry availability'), and the exact unit of work ('one loc_id or a bounded loc_id list'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly saying it does not resolve points or explain other 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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Use before get_geometry or an export.' It also signals when not to use it by excluding point resolution and identity-relationship explanation. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools for those excluded behaviors, so it stops just short of fully explicit routing.

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