rate_aois

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

With no annotations, the description adds useful input constraints (landunit length, EPSG:4326 for wkt) and the batching behavior ('one pipeline run'), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is (though an output schema exists), or any side effects or prerequisites.

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 two sentences, immediately states the core action, and provides a concrete example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the main use case and the critical 'aois' parameter, but the unexplained 'concerns' parameter and lack of explicit safety/prerequisite info leave notable gaps for a multi-parameter 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 compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining the structure and constraints of the required 'aois' parameter, but it completely omits any explanation of the 'concerns' parameter, leaving its semantics ambiguous.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Rate') and resource ('multiple landunits') and distinguishes it from the sibling 'rate_aoi' by emphasizing 'in one pipeline run' for multiple items. The use case example also reinforces purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Ideal for comparing fields/parcels') and implies it is the batch version of rate_aoi. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for inference from sibling names.

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