landis_nsi_within_area

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description only needs to add scope/behavior context. It does clarify that the tool filters by a bbox or GeoJSON polygon, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether bbox and geometry are mutually exclusive, or any coordinate system expectations.

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 no filler or redundant restating of the tool name. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 output schema and read/idempotent annotations, the description covers the basic read operation. But with 0% schema coverage, five parameters, and no mention of whether bbox and geometry are alternatives, requiredness, or how offset works, the description leaves meaningful gaps that an agent must infer.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It adds minimal meaning for bbox and geometry ('within a bbox or GeoJSON polygon') but says nothing about limit, offset, the tool const, or the structure/CRS of the geometry object.

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 ('List') with a specific resource ('LandIS NSI evidence sites') and a precise spatial scope ('within a bbox or GeoJSON polygon'). This clearly separates it from nearby siblings like landis_nsi_nearest_sites, which are point/proximity based.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'within a bbox or GeoJSON polygon', which tells the agent this is the area-based spatial query tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives such as landis_nsi_nearest_sites or landis_nsi_profile_summary.

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