get_waterways

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions retrieval in GeoJSON format but does not state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or detail rate limits, data precision, or bounding box area limits. This is insufficient, scoring 2.

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?

Description is a single, concise sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with the main action and format. No unnecessary words, earning a 5.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain output structure, the effect of the limit parameter, coordinate reference system, or how the waterway_type filter works. This is inadequate for a geographic data retrieval tool, scoring 2.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond summarizing the tool's function. Baseline is 3; no additional value is provided, hence a 3.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves waterway data (rivers, lakes, seas, canals) within a specified rectangular bounding box, outputting in GeoJSON format. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_buildings or get_roads, earning a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., other get_* tools). It does not mention prerequisites, bounding box size constraints, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. This lack of usage context results in a 2.

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