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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: it lists the return contents (metadata, vintage, centroid, bbox, optional polygon), notes it includes resolve_point chain levels, and clarifies it does not explain hierarchy. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details, exclusions/alternative, and usage preference. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only shape retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential outputs, the scope of loc_ids, exclusions, and a usage preference. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the schema already documents the batch cap, so the description remains sufficiently complete for selection and 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by directly relating include_polygon to the choice of bbox/centroid vs. exact rendering, and clarifies the optional polygon behavior. It also mentions the default public cap indirectly via 'No payment required' and the schema handles cap details.

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 states a specific verb ('Shape retrieval') and resource ('exact loc_ids'), also clarifying it works for any level of a resolve_point chain. It distinguishes itself from loc_id_info by stating it does not explain hierarchy or crosswalks, making the tool's purpose easy to identify among siblings.

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 explicit guidance: use loc_id_info for hierarchy/crosswalk details, and prefer bbox/centroid unless exact rendering or clipping requires the polygon. This clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives and when to select specific output options.

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