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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results omit geometry, the parameter mutual-exclusion failure mode, and that results are paged via page_token.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and what is excluded, then the constraint, then paging. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description supplies the essentials: no geometry, mutual exclusivity, and pagination. The only real gap is max_results/default page size behavior, which an agent would need for paging correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it explains the filter/part_ids duality with a syntax example and page_token's role. max_results is never mentioned, leaving one of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (returns attributes), resource (parts of a part layer), and an explicit scope exclusion ('no geometry'). It also names the discovery path (list_part_layers or ezt://part-layers), which separates it from the sibling that lists layers rather than parts.

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 a concrete operating rule: exactly one of filter or part_ids, and neither/both yields INVALID_REQUEST, including a filter example ({state_abbr: TX}). It does not compare against other retrieval siblings such as get_part_selection or points_in_territory, so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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