uae_source_geo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns GeoJSON and works on coordinate-bearing sources, but does not address error handling, rate limits, or behavior when sources lack coordinates. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with two sentences and a line for parameter formats. It is front-loaded with the output format and purpose, with no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (presumably GeoJSON), the description does not need to explain return values. It mentions the tool works on coordinate-bearing sources and provides parameter formats, but lacks details on error handling or non-spatial source behavior.

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 compensate. It only adds meaning for bbox and near parameters (format strings), leaving limit, query, dataset, and source_id undocumented. This is insufficient for 6 parameters.

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 spatially-filtered records as GeoJSON, identifying the verb ('filtered'), resource ('records'), and output format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like uae_source_records by focusing on spatial queries.

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 provides context that the tool works on any source with coordinates (e.g., MOIAT industrial licenses) and gives format hints for bbox and near parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

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