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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that by saying 'Reads'. It adds critical behavioral details: exclusion of staged/candidate work, local-loopback-only read_wip access, and automatic return of deeper tiers for additional country releases. It also states 'No payment required', a cost-related behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 quite verbose, with promotional language like 'Free geography discovery' and an entire paragraph on catalog scope ('Current catalog:...') that is not essential for calling the tool. Key usage instructions appear early, but the later marketing content dilutes focus. It could be trimmed by half while retaining all required actionable information.

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?

The description covers the core behaviors needed to use the tool: default projection, exclusion of staged/candidate, view guidance, and access restriction for read_wip. It also provides context on country coverage. However, it lacks a clear statement of what the response contains, and includes redundant marketing content. Overall, it is sufficient but not lean.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with detailed descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds context around view usage (e.g., 'use view='capabilities' first') and read_wip restrictions, but these are largely redundant with the schema's own descriptions. It does not clarify parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific action: 'Reads the published DaedalMap geometry catalog projection' and notes it excludes staged/candidate work. It distinguishes from other catalog tools by specifying 'geometry catalog projection', though it does not explicitly contrast with get_catalog. The scope is 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on which view to use first ('Use view='capabilities' first') and mentions focused views for different artifact types. It also notes the read_wip constraint for local loopback access. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like get_catalog or get_geometry, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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