infra_transport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the basic behavior: returning bridges, tunnels, etc., within a bounding box. However, it omits details about data sources, result limits, or permissions, which is acceptable for a simple query tool but not highly transparent.

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?

One sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Find'. Every word is necessary, no fluff. Highly concise and structured.

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 simple bounding box query tool, the description covers the essentials: what is found and the spatial scope. Schema fully documents parameters. Lack of output schema is compensated by the explicit list of result types. Minor omissions (e.g., data source) do not significantly hinder use.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema already define east/west/north/south as coordinates. The tool description adds that these define a bounding box, which is useful context but not substantial. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Find', the resource type (bridges, tunnels, ferry terminals, train stations), and the scope (bounding box). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling infrastructure tools like infra_cables or infra_energy by listing specific transport infrastructure types.

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 implies usage when transport infrastructure within a bounding box is needed, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like geo_bbox or other query tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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