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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and other hints are false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain whether the input data is modified, whether labels are temporary or persistent, or what happens to existing labels. With annotations present, the description still provides little beyond the fact that it 'adds' labels.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and it is easy to scan.

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?

While the schema is detailed, the description is too thin for a mutation tool with no output schema. It lacks information about what the tool returns, how it interacts with the GeoJSON data, or any prerequisites. The user is left without a clear picture of the tool's full behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well documented. The description adds the link between the 'field' parameter and the displayed attribute value, which reinforces the schema but does not significantly increase understanding beyond it.

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 text labels to GeoJSON features and displays attribute values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addMarker or addPolygon, as it specifies both the resource (GeoJSON features) and the action (adding text annotations).

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 when text labels are needed on GeoJSON features, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like addBillboard or addMarker. There is no mention of exclusions or competing tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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