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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that, adding further behavioral context: 'No payment required,' the include_hierarchy behavior of never inventing a parent edge across mixed releases, and the distinction between strict parentage and external side-chain references. This goes beyond the structured annotation and helps the agent predict side effects and access implications.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: input shape, returned data, optional flags, sibling routing, and cost/access note. There is no filler or tautology.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation semantics, the main flags, the expected return categories, and the relationship to sibling tools. The schema covers parameter-level details, while the description supplies the contextual framing an agent needs to choose and call this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying how loc_ids relate to a resolve_point stack and by explaining the real effect of include_hierarchy and include_references in plain chain-explanation terms. It does not need to repeat the schema; it adds the grouping and flag semantics that schemas often leave implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it is the 'drill-down tool for loc_ids returned by resolve_point and other geography calls.' It names the exact data returned—metadata, parentage, shape status, vintage/lifecycle, child counts—and distinguishes itself from get_geometry and compare_geographies, so an agent can tell it apart from nearby 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?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: pass one loc_id or pass the point result's stack loc_ids together. It also says when to use alternatives—'For exact polygons use get_geometry, and for overlap or successor analysis use compare_geographies'—and notes that resolve_point intentionally stays compact, making the trade-off between siblings explicit.

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