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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return type (GeoJSON FeatureCollection) and the intersecting predicate, but does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, potential permissions, rate limits, or the effect of the geojson parameter (though the schema covers that). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information (what is returned and the filter). It is efficiently worded with no filler. However, it is under-specified, so while concise, it lacks structural elements like usage notes that would make it more useful.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with an output schema and 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'easements' represent, how the intersection is computed, or what the FeatureCollection contains (attributes vs geometry). The schema covers the geojson parameter, but the description leaves out critical context about the meaning and structure of the response, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics; it doesn't mention either parameter. Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'geojson' has a description; 'suburb_name' has none). The description could compensate by explaining 'suburb_name' (e.g., 'suburb name to query easements for') but doesn't. It therefore adds nothing beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('registered easement geometries') and the spatial filter ('intersecting the suburb'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling shape tools like suburbs_shapes_boundary (boundary) and suburbs_shapes_mesh_blocks (mesh blocks) by naming the specific geometry type, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', so it's not a full 5.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list that this is for easement geometries, but no explicit routing or comparison to other suburbs_shapes_* tools is given.

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