get_layer_sample

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: default limit (5), cap (20), preview nature, and geometry handling (omitted or bounding box only). It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but those are less relevant for a read-only preview tool.

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?

Two compact sentences: first states purpose clearly, second adds constraints with inline formatting. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, constraints, and return behavior (representative features, no geometry by default). Given the presence of an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output, though it could mention randomness or ordering of features.

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?

The description adds meaning for 'limit' (default, cap) and 'include_bbox' (geometry omitted unless set, then only bbox), which are not explained in the schema (0% coverage). The 'layer_id' parameter is obvious from context but not explicitly described, preventing a perfect score.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('representative features from a vector layer'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_layer_schema' (schema only) and 'features_get' (full data retrieval).

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?

Explicitly states this is a 'preview, not a data export' and that geometry is omitted unless requested, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not directly name alternative tools for complete data retrieval.

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