Describe the input layer formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value by disclosing provenance ('generated by Hydrata from the same definitions the build reads, so it is never out of date') and the per-kind return contents. It does not add much beyond that provenance note, so a 3 is appropriate with annotations already carrying the operational traits.

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?

Front-loaded: the one-line purpose comes first, then the usage directive, then the return detail. Mostly tight, though 'Per kind it returns' partially restates the opening sentence and the field list is dense; a small trim would make it ideal.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still orients the agent on what comes back (geometry types, property types, required flags, allowed/min-max, required_one_of groups, notes, example). Combined with the provenance guarantee, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema's `kind` description already enumerates the seven values and the empty-string behavior. The description reiterates the per-kind return shape but adds no new meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Say what each input layer kind looks like') and enumerates the exact payload: geometry, properties, allowed values, minimal example. It is clearly a read-only reference/spec tool, distinguishable from the write siblings (write_input_layer, request_input_upload) it feeds.

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?

Explicitly says 'Read this BEFORE you build GeoJSON for write_input_layer or an upload', naming the downstream tools, and adds a negative instruction ('do not read source code or guess column names'). Both the when and the alternative paths are stated.

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