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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context: area is returned in m², 평, and km², and each call costs 10 points. It does not contradict the annotations and does not overclaim destructive behavior.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and informative, but the entire description is duplicated in Korean, which doubles the length without adding new agent-relevant information. The pricing note is useful but appended at the end rather than integrated.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job naming the returned values: area, perimeter, centroid, bounding box, point-inclusion result, and simplified boundary. It remains slightly incomplete on how point versus x/y should be chosen, but the schema covers most invocation details.

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 explains geojson, x, y, point, simplify, and includeGeometry. The description adds output-unit semantics for area but does not clarify parameter choices such as when to use point versus x/y.

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 names a specific resource (GeoJSON) and concrete operations: area, perimeter, centroid, bounding box, point-in-polygon, and boundary simplification. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby geo tools such as geo_measure.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated operations: an agent can infer it should use this when it has GeoJSON and needs geometric analysis. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like geo_measure.

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