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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the required authorization scope, which annotations do not cover, and clarifies the binding semantics of the created entity.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and entity definition, followed by the auth requirement. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no output schema and rich schema descriptions, the description covers purpose and permission requirements adequately. Minor gaps remain around duplicate-name behavior and what the response contains, but the schema carries most of the load.

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 documents all six parameters including the criticality enum and the feature_class resolution hint. The description's phrase 'bound to one feature class' adds only marginal meaning beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a precise verb and resource and goes further by defining the domain entity: 'a named grouping of features bound to one feature class.' This distinguishes it from neighbors like create_infrastructure_zone or create_infrastructure_feature_class, though it never names an alternative 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?

States a prerequisite ('Requires infrastructure_networks:write scope'), which is useful gating context, but gives no guidance on when to create a network versus a zone or feature class, nor any conditions under which creation should be avoided.

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