get_spatial_bounds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the return value is a JSON string containing spatial bounds, which is useful. However, it does not mention edge cases, coordinate system assumptions, or what happens if the file has no spatial coordinates.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes an organized Args/Returns structure. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the essential input and output. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure further, and the description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. The Args section says only 'file_path: Path to the NetCDF file', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and type. It does not specify accepted formats, required variables, or any file constraints.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('geographic extent (lat/lon bounds) of a NetCDF file'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_time_range or list_variables, which target different aspects of the file.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs the lat/lon bounding box of a NetCDF file. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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