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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the return is a GeoJSON Polygon in EPSG:4326, which is important for a boundary-listing tool. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination behavior.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool returns before noting the return format and filters. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by specifying the return geometry (GeoJSON Polygon, EPSG:4326). Filters are mentioned and pagination lives in the schema. Complete enough for correct invocation, though it omits empty-result or coordinate-order caveats.

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 four parameters (kind, page, per_page, network_id) are already documented. The description only restates that filtering exists by network or kind, adding no syntax, default, or enum detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (operational hydraulic boundaries) and enumerates concrete examples (pressure zones, DMAs, sewersheds), which distinguishes it from get_infrastructure_zone, create_infrastructure_zone, and list_infrastructure_networks without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'Filter by network or kind' implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_infrastructure_zone for a single zone or list_infrastructure_networks for the parent networks. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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