get_amenities

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

Without annotations, the description provides basic behavioral info (returns GeoJSON, includes POI data) but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, error responses, or what happens with empty results. The format is mentioned but no further behavioral traits.

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, highly concise. The first sentence presents the core action and format, the second adds examples. No wasted words.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain return structure, pagination, error handling, or the effect of output_path. Given the tool's complexity, more context is needed for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no clarification on how limit interacts with GeoJSON or what output_path does precisely in terms of behavior).

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 specifies the action (retrieve amenities), the input (rectangular area), the output format (GeoJSON), and the content (POIs like restaurants, hospitals). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve other map features.

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 states what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_buildings or get_roads. Usage context is implied by the resource type (amenities) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.

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