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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, leaving the description to carry the burden. It discloses synchrony, response budget, service-item caps, and environment-dependent behavior (hosted vs local loopback). This is substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then scaling limits and redirection. Every sentence contributes value without repetition 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 create/export tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, limits, access lane, and formats. The only notable omission is the return value or response structure, which is a minor gap given the tool's nature.

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 only 38% (3 of 8 params described). The description compensates by clarifying that loc_ids are an exact list with a default cap of 250, scope must be a single strict scope, format maps directly to the enum, and quote_id originates from estimate_geometry_package. Some optional params like include_polygon and output_name remain unexplained, but the core selection params gain meaningful context.

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 it 'Creates a synchronous v0 geometry export' from 'exact loc_ids or one strict scope', with explicit format options (GeoJSON, gzipped GeoJSON, zipped GeoJSON). This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_geometry (retrieval) and create_conversion_job (asynchronous conversion).

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: hosted service default of 250 loc_ids, 10-20 second response budget, and direct local-loopback exception. It explicitly directs users to estimate_geometry_package or get_tool_help for the effective access lane. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with async alternatives like create_conversion_job, so not a full 5.

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