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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input types (geometry or Feature) and the output target (WKT), plus the PostGIS/SQL context. However, it does not mention output format details (e.g., whether it returns a string), coordinate handling, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a conversion tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action verb and includes relevant examples in parentheses. Every phrase adds value—input type, output format, use case, and sample queries—with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool converts, the output format (WKT), and the practical context (PostGIS/SQL). It could be more thorough by specifying coordinate systems or output type, but these are not critical for this straightforward conversion tool.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'geojson' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by clarifying that the parameter can be a GeoJSON geometry or a Feature's geometry, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not provide examples of the exact string format, but this is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 that the tool converts a GeoJSON geometry (or a Feature's geometry) to WKT, with a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('GeoJSON geometry'). It also differentiates from siblings like wkt_to_geojson by specifying the direction and mention of PostGIS/SQL, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear usage context through user intents (e.g., 'I need this for a PostGIS INSERT', 'GeoJSON to WKT'), effectively telling the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the sibling list makes it obvious that wkt_to_geojson is the reverse operation.

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