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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: coordinate order [longitude, latitude], CRS (EPSG:4326), which fields are computed server-side (length_m, slope_pct, risk_score), and the required infrastructure_assets:write scope.

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 with no padding; the core identity and the geometry constraint are front-loaded before the scope requirement. Efficient for a 56-parameter tool.

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?

For a high-complexity create tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguities (geometry typing, CRS, axis order, server-computed fields, auth scope). It omits any indication of the response payload, which is the only notable gap.

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 95%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description reinforces the geometry parameter's format and axis order and clarifies that length_m/slope_pct/risk_score should not be supplied, but adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ('Create an infrastructure asset') and immediately narrows scope with the feature subtypes (segment or node). An agent can distinguish it from the generic create_asset sibling by the 'infrastructure' qualifier, though it never names or contrasts against that sibling explicitly.

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?

The description supplies hard prerequisites (geometry type per feature_type, EPSG:4326, required scope) which effectively define when the call will succeed, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or steering toward alternatives like bulk_create for multiple assets.

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