get_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the return format, the error on raster datasets, and the limit/offset paging behavior. It does not cover authentication, invalid dataset_id handling, or the meaning of 'bounded', but it discloses the key traits an agent needs to use it safely.

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 compact and logically ordered: a one-line summary, then key behavior, then parameter details. No filler or repetition. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description covers everything essential: return type, error condition, pagination, and parameter semantics. It lacks only minor details like how to obtain a dataset_id or exact behavior for invalid IDs, but the provided information is sufficient to call 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 goes beyond the structured schema. The Args section adds meaning: limit constraints (1-200, default 10), offset purpose ('paging'), bbox format ('minx,miny,maxx,maxy' in WGS84), and dataset_id as the target. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Get GeoJSON features for a dataset'. The return type (OGC-API FeatureCollection) and the error condition for raster datasets further clarify what the tool does. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_dataset_schema (metadata) and search_datasets (dataset discovery).

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 concrete usage context: it returns features only for vector datasets, errors on raster datasets, and supports pagination via limit/offset. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the raster error, so it misses the 'use X instead' guidance, but the context is clear.

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