features_in_area

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic functionality, omitting any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, authentication requirements, error handling, or impact on data. The lack of destructive hint or rate limit information leaves agents underinformed.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is essential; no redundancy or filler. The bbox format is clearly given, and the alternative polygon input is mentioned concisely.

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 tool's moderate complexity (spatial query with three parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return format, result limits, how to handle errors, and additional filtering capabilities. The agent would need to infer or experiment to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies the 'area' parameter format (bbox array or polygon object), but does not explain the 'limit' parameter (e.g., maximum features returned, default behavior) or the 'filters' parameter (how to construct filter objects). The added value is limited to one parameter.

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 returns features inside a bounding box or polygon, specifying the bbox format and alternative polygon via name/OSM ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_nearby (point proximity) and search_features (text search). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', making it slightly less direct.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies spatial area queries, but does not mention when not to use it or direct users to other tools for different needs (e.g., count_by_category for counts, find_nearby for proximity).

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