identify_map_layer

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's main job is added context. It delivers that with a genuine behavioral rule: on historical time-series layers only the current feature is kept unless include_historical is true, which the agent could not learn from annotations or schema.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action and coordinate frame front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and the historical caveat. There is a small blemish ("ech" instead of "each"), but no redundant padding.

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?

All seven parameters are documented in the schema and the description supplies the one non-obvious behavioral rule plus the layer-id prerequisite. With no output schema, it does not hint at what identified features look like (attributes, geometry counts), which is the remaining gap for a spatial 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including limit, tolerance, lang, and include_historical already carries its own documentation. The description only reinforces the point's WGS84 framing and the include_historical condition for time-series layers, adding little beyond the structured fields; the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ("identify geo.admin features") plus scope ("at a WGS84 point on one ech MapServer layer"), which is far more precise than the tool name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling find_map_features, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite and routing instruction: use search_map_layers to find the layer id before calling this tool. It also implies when to set include_historical via the time-series condition, but never states when to prefer find_map_features instead, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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