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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it is currently unavailable and "no scale factor is assumed" — telling the agent not to expect an actual computed scale factor from the call.

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 short sentences with the availability constraint front-loaded and no filler. The only weakness is that the unavailability note reads as an afterthought relative to the tool name.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema this is close to adequate, but the description never says what the call actually returns (a boolean flag, an error, an empty result) when the prerequisites are missing, and its stated prerequisites don't match the schema's inputs.

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 100%, so elevation_ft, grid_distance_ft and grid_scale_factor are all documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and the prerequisites it mentions (source CRS, local height, survey control) do not map to any schema field, which could confuse rather than clarify.

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 frames the tool as "Check availability of project-specific ground scaling," which is a specific verb and resource, but the tool name says "calculate_ground_scale." That mismatch means an agent expecting a computed result may be surprised; the actual purpose (a capability-availability check that currently returns nothing) is only implied.

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 states the conditions under which the tool is not usable ("Currently unavailable without verified source CRS, local height and survey control"), which is real exclusion guidance. However, it names no alternative tool or workflow to use instead of the missing calculation, leaving the agent without a next step.

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