plots_in_strata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them, notably that distances use the local UTM zone unless a CRS is supplied and that edge_distance_m=0 disables boundary flagging. It also tells the agent what categories of findings are produced, which is not derivable from the annotations. It stops short of describing granularity of results or how findings are keyed, which the output schema presumably covers.

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 front-loaded with the outcome-oriented summary before the parameter block, and both parts earn their space. The multi-clause opening sentence is dense but readable, and the per-argument lines are terse; only the redundant 'Layer name inside the X file' phrasing could be tightened.

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 9-parameter geospatial validation tool, the definition covers all required inputs plus the optional ones and explains the distance/CRS behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Only input format expectations (CRS syntax, file type expectations) are missing, a modest gap given the tool's complexity.

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 0% (only bare titles), so the Args block carries the full documentation burden and does so for all nine parameters, including which are optional and that edge_distance_m defaults to off. The gap is format guidance: it does not say what a CRS string looks like (EPSG code vs WKT) or what file formats plots_path/strata_path accept, which an agent must guess.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check monitoring or inventory plots against the strata') and enumerates the exact conditions it detects: plots outside every stratum, mismatched declared stratum, overlapping strata, near-boundary plots, and duplicate coordinates. This is far more specific than a restatement of the name, though it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings such as check_overlap or data_completeness.

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?

Usage is implied by the list of checks performed (a QA/validation pass on plot geometry against a strata layer), so an agent can infer the scenario. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no pointer to the sibling tools that might be the better choice (e.g., check_overlap for pure overlap testing).

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