find_places_in_area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Find', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention rate limits, result limits, pagination, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to convey the tool's behavior beyond the basic search action.

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, clear sentence with no filler or unnecessary details. It is appropriately front-loaded, placing the verb and action directly at the start, and every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 7 parameters with poor schema coverage and no annotations. The description only covers the basic purpose and does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly choose parameters (e.g., bounding box semantics, optional tag_value), making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 only 29% schema coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it does not. It merely mentions 'a tag' and 'bounding box' without explaining the coordinate order, how tag_value relates to tag_key, or the meaning of the limit parameter. The schema descriptions for limit and tag_key already cover some semantics, but the description adds no new parameter insight.

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 finds OSM elements by tag within a bounding box, using a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('OSM elements'), and scope ('bounding box'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_places_nearby, which likely use a different spatial query approach.

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 implies usage when a bounding box and tag are provided, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as raw_overpass_query or find_places_nearby. No exclusions or alternative guidance are given, so the guidance is only implicit.

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