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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the GeoJSON output format and that the county boundary is included only when includeCountyBounds is true.

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 sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and uses the second sentence only for a meaningful conditional detail. There is no redundant or wasted 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 simple read-only GeoJSON boundary tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It communicates the output format and the county-boundary option, though it could briefly clarify how slug and tokenId relate as identifiers.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the conditional behavior of includeCountyBounds but adds little beyond what the schema already says about slug, tokenId, or includeCountyBounds.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the parcel boundary of a property on Fabrica as GeoJSON.' It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby tools such as get_land_map_image or get_land_property.

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 gives implied use cases ('mapping, spatial analysis, and visualization') and a conditional usage rule for includeCountyBounds, but it does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_land_map_image or find_us_parcel.

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