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

Annotations are minimal (no read-only/destructive hints), and the description adds only the basis of the heatmap (GeoJSON points). It does not disclose side effects, interaction with existing layers, or reversibility. Since the schema and description are straightforward, the absence of deeper behavior disclosure is acceptable but not exceptional.

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, focused sentence that states the tool's function and data requirement. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or repetition.

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 simple 'add layer' tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the core purpose. It could mention the return value or layer ID, but the lack is not a significant gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both 'data' and 'radius' clearly documented. The description's mention of 'GeoJSON point data' is redundant with the schema. No additional meaning or usage details are provided, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool adds a heatmap layer generated from GeoJSON point data, using a specific verb ('add') and a distinct resource ('heatmap layer'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addGeoJsonLayer or addLabel.

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 implies usage for creating heatmaps from point data, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like addGeoJsonLayer, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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