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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the credit cost, auth requirement, input format specifics (shapefile as base64 .zip vs raw text), parameter edge cases (0 skips reprojection/simplification), and return format. This goes well beyond the empty schema descriptions, though it omits failure modes and rate limits.

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 longer than a two-liner but every sentence earns its place: purpose, benefit, auth, parameter breakdown, and return schema. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear paragraph-per-aspect structure. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 5-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains all parameters, return fields, and auth/credit constraints. It does not cover error cases or null handling, but those are less critical for a conversion tool. Overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it 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 0%, but the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: input_format values and data encoding, to_epsg=0 meaning, simplify_tolerance=0 plus algorithm, round_decimals default, and how data relates to format. Every parameter is given meaningful usage context beyond the bare schema.

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 'one-call file migration: convert a raw file to GeoJSON, then optionally reproject and simplify, then round coordinates.' This is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes the tool from individual conversion siblings like csv_to_geojson or reproject_geojson by emphasizing its bundling of multiple steps.

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 explicitly notes it 'Replaces 2-4 separate free tool calls... an agent would otherwise chain by hand' and references estimate_cost's 'replaces' field, giving clear when-to-use context. It also mentions prerequisites (Authorization header and credits), but does not explicitly state when to prefer individual tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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