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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses only that the polygon is 'simplified' and that output is a GeoJSON Feature plus centroid. It leaves unstated the coordinate reference system, whether the response is a single Feature or FeatureCollection, how the centroid is embedded, and the implications of the geojson=false flag. The 'simplified' caveat is genuinely value-adding but insufficient for confident use.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is the right size for a simple two-parameter tool. The unexplained 'SAL' abbreviation is the main blemish, along with the lack of any usage context, preventing a perfect score.

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 values need not be explained, yet the description still leaves selection-critical context missing: how boundary differs from suburbs_shapes_neighbours, what 'simplified' means in practice, and what the geojson param's behavior implies for the response. For a read-only GeoJSON fetch it is minimally viable but no better.

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 only 50% (geojson documented, suburb_name bare), and the tool description adds no parameter information at all. The geojson param is well explained in the schema, but suburb_name — the one required parameter — gets no format or example guidance beyond its name.

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 specifies the exact deliverable — a simplified SAL boundary polygon as a GeoJSON Feature plus a centroid — which is a specific resource with an implicit return verb. It is readily distinguishable from sibling shapes tools by the resource word 'boundary', though it never names siblings or clarifies the SAL acronym. No explicit verb appears, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no reference to alternatives such as suburbs_shapes_neighbours, which could plausibly be confused for a boundary-shape tool. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the one-line description, so the agent gets no help choosing among the seven sibling suburbs_shapes_* tools.

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