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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description layers on substantial extra context: no API key required, anonymous rate limits of 60/hour and 300/day per IP and session, key-based fallback after monthly quota, SI normalisation, provenance, and licence warnings. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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 core purpose and scope are front-loaded, which is good, but the paragraph is padded with boilerplate ('TerraMCP is a Wrench AI service') that does not help an agent call the tool. Rate-limit and licence sentences earn their place; the marketing line does not.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the operational constraints an agent needs: scope, licensing, auth-free access, and throttling. It is only slightly short on return-shape hints, saying merely 'returns source data and provenance'.

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?

Only one parameter (limit) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents its bounds and default. The description adds nothing about the limit parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List BGS OGC API Features collections') and narrows scope precisely to the two collections with verified OGL terms. The implicit contrast with bgs_features (collections vs features) is inferable but never made explicit, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains which collections are included and why others are excluded ('pending licence checks'), which is useful selection context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to sibling tools such as bgs_features for the actual feature data.

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