query-within-box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without clarifying whether it is read-only, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), boundary point handling, or any access requirements. This is a significant gap for a query tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It directly states the tool's essence without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values, result structure, and potential behavioral nuances. It does none of this. While the tool itself is conceptually simple, the description is minimally viable but insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior, particularly around result format and edge cases.

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?

All six parameters are covered in the schema with descriptive names and brief descriptions, giving baseline credit. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('objects') with a clear geographic scope ('within a geographic bounding box'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like query-near and query-objects by explicitly specifying the bounding box filtering mechanism.

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 clearly conveys the intended use case (geographic bounding box queries), allowing an agent to infer when to use this tool over alternatives. No explicit exclusions or alternative names are mentioned, but the context is sufficiently clear for a basic selection decision.

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