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

All annotations are false (not read-only, not destructive, etc.), so the description must bear the burden of explaining behavioral traits. It only says 'add rectangle', providing no details on side effects, coordinate system expectations, or how the rectangle is inserted into the scene.

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, grammatically complete sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it may be too terse for a tool with this many parameters. Structure is clean; content is minimal.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no useful annotation hints, the description is far too incomplete. It lacks details on return values, behavior, or coordinate system, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects.

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?

The phrase 'by geographic extent' adds meaning to the required 'coordinates' parameter (west/south/east/north), but with 8 parameters and only 13% schema description coverage, the remaining 7 parameters like height, outline, and extrudedHeight are left undefined. The description insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('add') and the resource ('rectangle') with a specific scope ('by geographic extent'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addBox or addPolygon, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it over other add* tools.

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