get_entity_geometry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the data source ('local teadata snapshot') and the response element ('geometry_fields'), which indicates what the output will include. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 concise sentences plus an example. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage context, and the example clarifies a typical query. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what the response includes (geometry/location data and geometry_fields). There is no output schema, but the description compensates by mentioning the key output attribute. It could be more complete (e.g., specifying the exact response format), but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (identifier and entity_type), with 100% coverage. The description does not add new parameter-specific details, but the example ('What geometry fields does Austin ISD expose?') implicitly illustrates how to use the parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Fetch campus or district geometry/location data from the local teadata snapshot.' It specifies the resource (campus/district geometry) and the action (fetch), and even notes the inclusion of 'geometry_fields' to indicate available attributes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_district or get_campus_detail, which focus on other data types.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for map/boundary questions or to confirm geometry before drawing.' This clearly identifies suitable scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-geometry queries, so it falls short of a full 5.

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