bbox_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses coordinate units, the SW/NE convention, the required ordering constraints (min_lat <= max_lat, min_lon <= max_lon), and the default behavior of 'categories'. Return shape is not described, but an output schema exists.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then units, coordinate conventions, constraints, default behavior, and a concrete example. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It covers units, parameter semantics, defaults, and a calling example. The only notable gap is not explicitly distinguishing this from the related 'pois' sibling.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond the schema: all coordinates are decimal degrees, min is south-west, max is north-east, the inequality constraints are required, and categories has a sensible default. The example further clarifies parameter usage.

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 states a clear specific action ('Counts of key amenities inside a bounding box') and identifies itself as a 'light density helper'. This clearly separates it from geocoding and routing siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'pois' tool.

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 context is reasonably clear: this is for quick amenity counts within a bounding box, and the example reinforces usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as 'pois', and no when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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