os_places_within

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as bbox size limits, coordinate order, result caps, or pagination behavior, and it neither contradicts nor meaningfully enriches the annotation profile.

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 only nine words, contains no filler, and front-loads the resource. It is efficient; the only structural weakness is that it is a noun phrase fragment rather than a complete sentence with an explicit verb.

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 geospatial tool, failing to document the bbox coordinate order or coordinate reference system is a real correctness risk. The output schema covers return-value shape and annotations cover safety, but an agent is still under-equipped to construct a valid bbox call or choose this over related place-query tools.

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 for parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'bbox' refers to a bounding box, but it does not specify coordinate order, units/CRS, or how the four required numbers should be arranged, leaving the main parameter underdocumented.

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 identifies the resource ('Addresses') and the spatial scope ('within a bounding box'), so an agent can infer it returns addresses matching a bbox. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings like os_places_radius or os_places_polygon, which prevents a top score.

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 'within a bounding box' implies the usage context: use this when you have a bbox and want addresses in it. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives among the several os_places_* sibling tools, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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