get_spatial_reference

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

The description explicitly states 'Pure lookup — touches no files', which is a strong behavioral disclosure indicating read-only, no side effects. Since annotations were not provided, this disclosure is valuable. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but for a simple lookup tool, this is sufficient.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input, and output. Every word adds value, with no fluff 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers essential aspects: action, resource, and output fields. It could mention error cases or validity of WKID, but overall it is fairly complete for a lookup tool.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that the WKID parameter is used to look up a CRS and listing the returned attributes (name, type, linear/angular units, datum). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action 'Look up a CRS by WKID' and lists the returned attributes (name, type, units, datum). It distinguishes this tool from siblings, which are all about data manipulation or analysis, making the purpose unique and specific.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given its unique function among siblings (no other CRS lookup tool), usage is implied. No exclusion criteria or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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