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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the return shape (ts_handle + summary), the downstream contract, the error code for a failure mode, and the auth requirement (ezt_pat_ Bearer) for the Designer case. It even notes the absence of an MCP pull tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, return value, and next step before the edge cases, so an agent gets the essentials first. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information rather than filler.

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?

Complete for a multi-input import tool: input encodings, rejection rules, follow-on usage, and auth are all covered. The presence of an output schema is not relied upon since the description still clarifies the ts_handle handoff.

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?

With 0% schema coverage across 8 params, the description compensates substantially: geojson, geojson_text (sniffed gzip/zip), geojson_gzip (base64), part_layer, overlay_policy, point_layer, and tal_label are all explained. Only guidance_handle is left undocumented, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 verb (import) and resource (GeoJSON FeatureCollection), and immediately delineates the accepted input variants (standard points, export_geojson artifact, gzip/zip). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like export_geojson.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to follow-on tools (get_map_visualization/analyze/export_geojson via ts_handle) and warns against reposting the GeoJSON body. It also states the exact rejection condition (TERRITORY_POLYGONS_WITHOUT_PART_IDS) and the workaround (part_layer + overlay_policy='centroid_within'), plus the Designer rolodex path.

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