qobrix_get_property_coordinates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the return format (array of { id, coordinates } objects) and the optional filtering behavior. While it doesn't discuss edge cases like missing coordinates or errors, the core behavioral traits are transparent for a read-only getter.

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 three short, purposeful sentences: states the main action, the optional filtering capability, and the return shape. No redundancy or filler—every sentence 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 with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, filtering, and return type. It does not mention what happens when no properties match or if coordinates are missing, but these are minor edge cases for such a focused tool. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.

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?

The only parameter, 'search', has 100% schema description coverage with detailed DSL grammar and examples. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond stating that filtering is optional and returns a subset. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves lat/lng coordinates for properties, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qobrix_get_property (full property details) and qobrix_get_project_coordinates (coordinates for projects) by explicitly scoping to properties.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for map display, and optionally with a search expression for a subset. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident. A clear context without exclusions aligns with a score of 4.

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