geo.find_boundaries

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that geometry is generalized, the publisher disclaims survey use, and it must never be used to decide which side of a boundary an address sits on. It also explains the independent-city behavior, which is a suprising edge case.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: function, usage context, edge case, geomery caveat, parameter guidance, and sibling distinction. Key constraints are front-loaded, and the warning about surveying is prominent.

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?

The output schema presumably documents return fields, so the description focuses on what is not elsewhere specified: when to use the tool, how the geometry behaves, independent-city behavior, and the detail parameter. For an agent selecting and invoking this tool, all necessary context is present.

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 compensates by explaining that detail='full' requests vertices and by framing jurisdiction as a Virginia jurisdiction whose territory is returned as separate for independent cities. It does not specify the jurisdiction value format, but the parameter semantics are meaningfully clarified.

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 has a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Virginia jurisdiction's official boundary,' and lists concrete return contents (FIPS, GNIS, area, jurisdiction type, bounding box, centroid). It also distinguishes itself from sibling registry.resolve_jurisdiction by explicitly stating it is not a containment test.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool ('confirm WHICH government's territory is meant and how big it is') and when not to use it ('Not a containment test... use registry.resolve_jurisdiction'). This gives clear routing guidance against the sibling tool.

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