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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned content categories (buildings with owner/type/floors/light counts, and gaps such as alleys and empty lots) and the coordinate system and maximum span, but it does not state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or response format.

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 dense sentence with no wasted preamble. The key scope and unit information is front-loaded, though the sentence is compressed enough that the implied retrieval verb and response shape remain slightly understated.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable account of what comes back: buildings and gaps with a few named fields and centimetre positions. It does not fully describe the response structure, but it covers enough for an agent to understand the street-segment concept.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a small amount of meaning by reiterating centimetre units and the 80000 cm maximum, which relates to the from/to range parameters but does not explain mode, seed, or language behavior beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource and its scope: a stretch of street containing buildings in a range and gaps such as alleys and empty lots. It also specifies coordinate units and a maximum span, which helps distinguish it from the sibling get_building tool, though the verb is only implied by the tool name.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use get_street versus alternatives like get_building, preview_building, or search. The range and maximum span imply usage for collecting a contiguous street segment, but the description leaves the agent to infer that comparison.

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