get_buildings

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

With no annotations, the description only reveals it returns GeoJSON and supports filtering. It does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, performance, or data coverage. Adequate but minimal for a read operation.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and format. Highly concise and easy to parse.

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 schema richness (100% coverage, enum, limits), the description covers the core functionality. Missing details like coordinate system or behavior with no data, but overall sufficient for a spatial query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that output is GeoJSON and filterable by type, which adds marginal value beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 retrieves building data within a rectangle in GeoJSON format and supports filtering by building type. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_roads or get_amenities.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_amenities. Usage is implied by the spatial query and building focus, but no when-not-to-use or alternative naming.

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