geospatial_geojson_to_3d_extrusion

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the cost ('0.030 USDC on Base L2'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention input validation, return format, side effects, or operational requirements beyond payment, leaving significant gaps for a paid conversion tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core function and appends the cost parenthetically. No wasted words, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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?

Despite being a complex geospatial conversion tool with payment requirements, the description does not specify the expected payload schema (e.g., required keys), whether paymentSignature is mandatory in practice, the output format (GLB, glTF, mesh?), coordinate systems, or units for elevation. The minimal schema and absence of annotations mean these gaps are not covered elsewhere, leaving the tool under-specified for correct invocation.

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 descriptions are generic ('Input parameters or JSON string payload') except for paymentSignature. The tool description clarifies that payload relates to GeoJSON footprints and mentions features like roof caps and elevation offsets, which likely correspond to payload fields. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, even though the exact payload structure is not specified.

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 ('translates') and resource ('2D GeoJSON polygon building footprints') with clear output details ('extruded 3D geometry with roof caps, elevation offsets, and geocentric coordinate anchoring'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like geodetic coordinate conversion or generic mesh processing.

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 implies usage through its specific input type ('2D GeoJSON polygon building footprints'), but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this tool over other 3D-related siblings, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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