get_bounding_box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the basic return type ('GeoJSON polygon') and the intended downstream use, but does not mention error behavior, side effects, authentication, or limitations. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description is almost complete: it states the return type (GeoJSON polygon) and the use case (AOI for search/order). It lacks details like error handling or coordinate reference system, but these are not critical for an AI agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single 'query' parameter with a clear description ('A named place to look up a bounding box for'). The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the tool 'Returns a bounding box polygon for a named place' with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'directly usable as an AOI in search and order tools' adds a distinguishing use-case, differentiating it from siblings like geocode that return coordinates rather than polygons.

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 instructs 'Use this to convert a place name into a GeoJSON polygon for subsequent tool calls,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the usage intent is unmistakable.

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