Get property boundary (GeoJSON)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The only behavioral statement — that county bounds require includeCountyBounds: true — merely restates the schema's own parameter description, adding little beyond structured data.

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 tightly bounded sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is partially redundant with the includeCountyBounds schema description, which costs a point but not the structure.

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 read-only geo tool with strong annotations, the description conveys the return type (GeoJSON) adequately and no output schema is needed. The notable gap is that zero parameters are required, yet the description never clarifies whether slug, tokenId, or both are needed to resolve a property — the main decision an agent faces here.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the county-bounds flag and the large decorative layer caveat. The description adds no syntax, format, or relationship guidance (e.g., whether slug or tokenId is required) beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — retrieving GeoJSON boundary data for a tokenized property — which is clear and distinct from most siblings like get_property or get_valuation. However, it never differentiates itself from the spatially-related sibling find_parcel, so an agent choosing between boundary-lookup tools gets no help.

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 phrase 'for mapping, spatial analysis, and visualization' gives implied usage context (when the caller needs geometry), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus find_parcel or get_property_image, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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