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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description reinforces it by disclosing the underlying GET endpoint. It adds nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or how the 'exports'/'transformations' flags affect payload size or latency.

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 compact sentences, with the search semantics and filter examples front-loaded before the incidental API path. Zero 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?

No output schema exists, so the description could ideally say a bit about result shape (e.g. codes, names, WKT when exports=true). Still, for a straightforward filtered search with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, it is close to sufficient.

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 100% and every parameter is documented in-schema, including the filter syntax the description merely repeats. Baseline 3 is appropriate: the description adds no meaning beyond the 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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('MapTiler's CRS/EPSG database'), and the filter examples ('code:4326', 'kind:CRS-PROJCRS') make the scope concrete. It is implicitly distinct from the geocoding/transform siblings but never names or contrasts them.

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 explains *how* to query (free text or key:value filters) and gives an example, but never states when to reach for this tool versus maptiler_transform_coordinates or the geocoding siblings. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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