os_poi_within

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds the WGS84 coordinate reference context, which is useful, but does not disclose output behavior, ordering, or edge cases. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not a rich behavioral disclosure.

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 filler. It states the operation, resource, and key constraint efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema (so return values are covered), and annotations cover safety. However, the description does not mention the optional limit parameter or how this tool relates to spatial siblings like os_poi_nearest and os_poi_search. These are moderate gaps for an agent deciding between 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 only 33%: only bbox has a description ('[minLon,minLat,maxLon,maxLat]'), while limit and tool are undocumented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the bbox hint, leaving the limit parameter's semantics entirely unspecified. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('OS Points of Interest'), and spatial scope ('within a WGS84 bounding box'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like os_poi_nearest and os_poi_search. An agent can understand the tool's function immediately from the description alone.

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 the use case: a spatial query by bounding box. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as os_poi_nearest or os_poi_search, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but alternatives are not addressed.

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