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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: it is synchronous, has a size constraint and response-time budget on hosted service, and behaves differently for local loopback callers (no cap). These details inform the agent about operational limits and execution mode, adding substantial context beyond the annotation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding constraints and alternative guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 8 parameters, nested scope object, and no output schema, the description provides essential context: purpose, input modes, output formats, operational limits, and pointer to alternatives. It lacks explicit detail on scope object semantics and some optional parameters, but the schema provides partial descriptions, and the missing info may be non-critical for selection/invocation.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that loc_id, loc_ids, and scope are alternatives ('exact loc_ids or one strict scope') and by listing the output formats that map to the format enum. It also highlights the loc_ids limit. However, with only 38% schema coverage, it does not explain scope sub-properties, include_polygon, or output_name semantics, leaving some gap.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Creates'), names the resource ('geometry export'), specifies input modes ('exact loc_ids or one strict scope'), and explicitly lists output formats ('GeoJSON, gzipped GeoJSON, or zipped GeoJSON'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_geometry or get_pack by emphasizing creation of an export rather than retrieval.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states the hosted-service cap (250 loc_ids, 10-20 second response budget) and explicitly directs users to estimate_geometry_package or get_tool_help for determining the effective access lane. This is clear context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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