os_map_inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the bbox-bounded scope and example feature categories, but does not disclose behavior around pagination, per-layer limits, or default layer selection beyond what the schema implies.

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. Every word contributes the core call intent: returning a bounded inventory for a bbox.

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 8 parameters including several advanced nested objects, the description is thin. However, the output schema exists, the required parameter is simple, and the schema documents optional parameters reasonably well, so the most common bbox-only invocation is sufficiently supported.

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 high (88%), so the schema carries most of the parameter meaning. The description lists a few layer names and emphasizes bbox, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for optional nested parameters like limits, pageTokens, and collections.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource scope: a bounded inventory of UPRNs, buildings, road links, and path links for a bbox. It is clear at a glance, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools such as os_features_query or os_map_export.

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 phrase 'for a bbox' gives implied usage context: use this when you need an inventory of features within a bounding box. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor any exclusion conditions.

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