Find features in a bounding box

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

Annotations already cover safety via readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns up to 'limit' elements with tags and a centre coordinate, and it warns about performance with large boxes. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation, the second describes the return value, and the third provides necessary operational guidance. Every sentence contributes value.

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 still explains the result shape (elements with tags and a centre coordinate) and the limit behavior. It also includes a practical scale warning. It lacks details like error behavior or exact response format, but an agent has enough 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 only 33%, so the description must help compensate. It adds the coordinate order and units ('south, west, north, east in decimal degrees') for the four bbox parameters, which is important semantic information not present in their schema entries. The tags and limit parameters are already well described in the 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 identifies the action: find OpenStreetMap features matching tag filters within a bounding box, and describes the output shape. It is specific about the resource and inputs, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like overpass_query or find_nearby, beyond one reference to count_features.

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 gives concrete operational guidance: keep boxes small and call count_features first for city-sized areas. This clearly states when this tool is appropriate versus count_features, though it does not explain when overpass_query or find_nearby would be better alternatives.

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