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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly describes key behavior: combining all input features into one rectangle, the tilt capability, and the return structure '{ok, geojson}'. However, it omits details like expected input GeoJSON type (FeatureCollection vs single geometry), handling of non-polygon features, or error conditions, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage examples and the return format. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no enums) and an output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. However, the lack of parameter specifics and behavioral edge cases makes it incomplete for reliable agent invocation, particularly because annotations are absent and schema coverage is 0%. The description covers the what and when but leaves the how under-specified.

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 input schema only defines a required 'geojson' string, and description coverage for it is 0%. The description's reference to 'all input features' is the only hint about the parameter, but it does not specify whether the value must be a GeoJSON FeatureCollection or other structure, nor any format constraints. This is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool computes the smallest-area rotated rectangle around all input features, uses a specific verb ('wrapping'), and notes that it can be tilted to fit tighter than a straight bounding box. It provides alternative user phrasings (e.g., 'oriented bounding box') and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like envelope_geojson and convex_hull_geojson.

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 phrase 'can be tilted to fit tighter than a straight bounding box' gives clear context for when to prefer this tool over an axis-aligned bounding box, and the example phrasings help agents recognize user intent. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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