Identify Features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating it's a safe read operation. The description adds context about tolerance (0=exact hit) and layer filtering, which is useful but does not go beyond typical expectations. No contradictions.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences covering purpose and parameters. Every word adds value, no redundancy, and it front-loads the core action.

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 simple tool and good annotation coverage, the description is largely complete. It details all parameter semantics. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., feature IDs or geometries), which could help an agent interpret the result.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining three parameters (point, tolerance, layer_ids, limit). It specifies the coordinate format, tolerance unit, and default layer scope. Only the default value for limit is omitted, but it's 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 uses a specific verb ('identify') and resource ('features at a point'), clarifies the coordinate system ('project CRS'), and provides a helpful analogy ('map-click analogue'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_layer_features or select_features, which serve different purposes.

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 explains the tool's use case (point-based identification across layers) with clear parameters (tolerance, layer_ids, limit). It mentions default behavior for layer_ids ('visible vector layers') but does not explicitly state when alternatives should be used, though the analogy helps.

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