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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return wrapper ('JSON {ok, geojson}'), the output type ('FeatureCollection of points'), and a key behavior ('Properties are kept'). This goes beyond the bare schema, though it omits edge-case handling such as invalid geometries or mixed geometry types.

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 (three sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, examples, property preservation, and output format. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 compute tool with an output schema, the description covers the main input/output contract and key behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it, although it could mention limitations for degenerate or mixed geometries.

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?

With only one parameter, 'geojson', the schema provides just a type string and 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by implying the input features should be polygons/lines ('each polygon/line feature'), but it does not explicitly state the expected GeoJSON structure (e.g., FeatureCollection vs geometry) or coordinate assumptions.

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+resource: 'Get the center point of each polygon/line feature', and provides concrete paraphrase examples ('find the center of each parcel', 'convert polygons to points for labeling'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling geometry tools like convex_hull_geojson or envelope_geojson by focusing on per-feature centroids.

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?

Examples like 'find the center of each parcel' and 'centroid of each feature' indicate the typical labeling/point-conversion use case, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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