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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (GeoJSON Polygon in EPSG:4326), which the annotations cannot convey and there is no output schema for.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, return format second, filtering third. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, filtering, and return format, and annotations cover the safety profile with no output schema required. The only gap is explicit guidance on when to choose this over the single-zone and network list siblings.

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 all four parameters (kind, page, per_page, network_id) are already documented with enums and formats. The description only restates the two filter dimensions and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (List) and a well-defined resource (operational hydraulic boundaries / pressure zones, DMAs, sewersheds), adding domain semantics beyond the tool name. An agent can distinguish it from list_infrastructure_networks and get_infrastructure_zone by the boundary/geometry framing.

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 closing clause 'Filter by network or kind' gives implied usage (how to narrow results), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_infrastructure_zone or list_infrastructure_networks, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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