Import a small CityJSON text document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful behavioral constraint: the complete JSON travels through the MCP request, explaining the size limit. However, it does not describe side effects, return value, or error behavior, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the scope and limitation; the second gives the alternative. No waste, and the key warning is placed first.

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 low-complexity tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to guide correct invocation: it covers the use case, size constraint, and preferred sibling. It omits return/result details, but not enough to degrade confident calling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the transport-related constraint relevant to the content parameter, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for either parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: importing small, programmatically supplied CityJSON documents as a fallback. It specifically distinguishes itself from the main cityjson_import sibling by naming the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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 when to use this tool ('small programmatically supplied CityJSON documents only'), when not to use it ('normal chat attachments or large models'), and names the alternative (cityjson_import instead).

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