measure_area

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important non-obvious behaviors: invalid geometry is repaired before measuring, repairs are recorded, planar results are compared with ground area and may return a warnings ratio, and planar is refused on geographic CRS. Nothing contradicts the idempotentHint or other annotations.

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 core purpose and units, then provides method details and edge-case behavior in a compact, dense structure. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no parameter description coverage, the description covers operation semantics, units, method trade-offs, refusal behavior, repair behavior, and warning output. An agent has enough context to select parameters and interpret results, especially since an output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It richly explains the `method` parameter including defaults, refusal conditions, and unit conversion behavior, and clarifies that area is written to a named column. It does not explicitly detail `input_path`, `output_path`, or the default `area_column` name, though these are inferable from context and schema defaults.

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 the exact action: compute area per feature in square metres, write it to a named column, and include a total in the result. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling geometry operations like buffer, centroid, or dissolve.

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 strong method-selection guidance: geodesic as the default for ground area, planar for layer-CRS area, and explicitly refuses planar on geographic CRS. It does not name an alternative sibling tool, but area measurement is unique among the listed siblings, so the internal method guidance is sufficient.

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