get_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the response shape (OGC-API FeatureCollection), a failure mode (raster datasets will error), pagination behavior (capped by limit, page with offset), and strict argument validation. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether results are ordered, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Purpose and return type are front-loaded, followed by caveats and then the argument list, which is the right ordering. The "Only the arguments listed below are supported; anything else is rejected" line partially duplicates additionalProperties=false, a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight description.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return type (OGC-API FeatureCollection) and error conditions, and it documents all four parameters despite zero schema coverage. It is complete enough to call correctly; the main residual gap is that dataset_id's expected form (id vs. slug) is not clarified.

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, and it does: it gives the units/format for bbox ("minx,miny,maxx,maxy", WGS84), the range and default for limit (1-200, default 10), and the paging role of offset. Only dataset_id ("Dataset id") stays a bare restatement, which is the one weak spot.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get GeoJSON features for a dataset") with an explicit scope qualifier ("bounded") and a stated return format (OGC-API FeatureCollection). It clearly separates itself from a generic query tool, but it never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. query) so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It supplies real usage conditions: raster datasets have no features and will error, results are capped and must be paged with offset, and unsupported arguments are rejected. However, it never names an alternative tool or says when to prefer query/search_datasets over this one, so an agent is left to infer routing on its own.

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