buildings_in_bbox

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe-read behavior; the description adds that the tool aggregates/counts buildings and dwelllings. It does not describe filtering semantics, aggregation dimensions, or limits, but the annotation lowers the burden somewhat.

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 tight and front-loaded: purpose, use-case example, and coordinate context each earn their place. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 six parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core bounding-box concept but leaves canton and since_year behavior unexplained. The output schema and readOnly annotation fill some gaps, but the definition is not fully self-sufficient.

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. It explains the LV95 coordinate system and plausible numeric ranges for the four required bounding-box parameters, and 'new construction' hints at a time filter. However, the optional canton and since_year parameters are not explicitly explained.

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 opening sentence states a specific action ('Aggregate buildings/dwellings') and resource constrained to an LV95 bounding box, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like new_construction or lookup_dwellings, so it stops 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?

The school-district example implies a sub-municipal analysis use case, giving some contextual guidance. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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