get_stats_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tool is a 'filtered read', it can return either viewport-scoped or global totals depending on parameters, and the bbox coordinate system is EPSG:4326. This adds value beyond the name and schema, though it does not explicitly state read-only semantics or potential side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: first states the function, second explains parameter modes, third clarifies the coordinate system. No filler or redundant content.

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, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, and coordinate system. The output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. It could have more explicitly differentiated from get_stats_overview, but overall it is complete for an agent to use 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the 4 parameters form a bbox, must be passed together for a filtered read, and that omitting them yields global totals. The tuple order [west, south, east, north] maps clearly to the min/max lat/lng parameters, providing semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('counts parcels, total area, distinct viloyats (provinces) and nurseries inside a bbox') and distinguishes it from the sibling get_stats_overview by emphasizing the viewport/bbox scope. The 'Viewport-scoped stats' prefix immediately conveys the resource and scope.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need stats within a bbox. It also explains two usage modes (pass all 4 bbox params for filtered read, or none for global totals). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use relative to sibling tools like get_stats_overview.

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