object_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Side-effects: None. Read-only spatial query' mostly restates structured data. The genuinely added context is that results come back normalized with measured bounds, removing the need for a separate DXF export, but there is no mention of permission requirements, behavior when only some bounding coordinates are supplied, or cost of large queries.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then cleanly separated side-effect and disambiguation lines. The 'so source-registration workflows do not need side-channel DXF export' clause is rationale rather than instruction, but it earns its place by explaining the tool's niche.

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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter docs, and a readOnly annotation, the remaining burden on the description is small and it covers purpose and preferred-use. It omits edge-case behavior that matters for an 8-parameter spatial query, such as partial bbox input or how limit/offset interact with the bounding window.

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 eight parameters are already documented, including the bbox corners, filters, limit and offset. The description only references the type/layer filters and bounding window generically and adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Query a bounded object set by type/layer and optional WCS bounding window') plus the return shape ('normalized objects plus measured bounds'). The disambiguation line positions it as the spatial-query option versus plain listing/getting, but it never names the sibling tools (object_list, object_get) it is meant to replace.

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?

Explicitly says it is the 'preferred spatial query tool to find objects inside a bounding box', which gives a clear selection criterion. It lacks any when-not guidance (e.g., use object_list when no spatial constraint applies) and says nothing about combining bbox with filters or about paginating large result sets.

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