validate_aoi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states that the tool costs nothing, makes no API call, only reports, and applies no size limit. It also discloses the heuristic nature of the transposition check with 'look transposed.' Minor omissions like handling of invalid GeoJSON or exact output formatting prevent a higher score.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first lists outputs, the second covers cost and network behavior, the third explains the no-limit policy. Key information is front-loaded and there is no 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 description is complete for a single-parameter reporting tool: it explains the purpose, the local execution, the lack of side effects, and the boundary around size limits. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently conveys the kind of measurements returned, so an agent can anticipate the result without needing a full return-value spec.

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 already fully documents the single parameter as a GeoJSON FeatureCollection, Feature, Polygon, or MultiPolygon. The description adds that the parameter is an 'area of interest' and that it is measured locally, but does not add format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Measure') and resource ('GeoJSON area of interest') and lists concrete outputs: geodesic area, bounding box, edge lengths, ring closure, and transposition check. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it runs locally and makes no API call, which separates it from the submit_* tools.

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 conveys when to use this tool: as a local, cost-free pre-flight check of an AOI before submission. It implies a validation workflow and notes that no size limit is applied because limits vary by plan, giving useful context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like split_aoi, but the local/no-API-call framing makes the appropriate use clear.

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