overture_get_feature

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: lookup pinning semantics with and without bounds, and the non-obvious caveat that empty scoped results do not establish global nonexistence. It adds context the annotations cannot express, only missing return/pagination behavior (which the output schema covers).

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 purpose is stated up front and each following sentence adds a distinct rule (bounds behavior, requirement conditions, empty-result caveat, fields). It is dense but every sentence earns its place; phrasing is slightly cryptic in the opening clause.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the bounds/pinning and empty-result semantics an agent needs to call it correctly; only a few parameter details (identifier, include_geometry) are missing.

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 carry the burden. It explains bounds, release, fields ('chooses properties; default is all'), and references theme/type, but leaves identifier and include_geometry unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get a UUID feature from search' — retrieve a single feature by its identifier. It is understandable on its own and implicitly distinct from list-oriented siblings like overture_search, but it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives real conditional guidance: with bounds the lookup is pinned to an area/release; without bounds it uses the GERS registry and requires matching theme/type/current release, and non-GERS/historical releases need bounds. That is clear when-to-use context, though it stops short of naming sibling tools to prefer or avoid.

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