find_map_features

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the single-layer scoping constraint and a concrete example; it says nothing about result volume behavior, geometry vs attribute payload, or how historical/current filtering affects matches beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, prerequisite second, worked example last. Every sentence carries information and the ordering is front-loaded. Minor deduction for the opaque token 'ech' and jargon density that a reader must parse, but nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description could have said what feature records look like, but for a filtered query tool with full schema coverage and explicit annotation hints, it is nearly sufficient. The prerequisite chain to identify_map_layer fills the main gap an agent would otherwise hit; only return-shape expectations remain unstated.

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 all six parameters including limit, contains, and include_historical are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The worked example (layer ch.swisstopo.swissboundaries3d-gemeinde-flaeche.fill, search_field gemname, search_text Bern) does add real value by showing the expected id format and the relationship between search_field and search_text, but it only illustrates the three required params.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find features on a single geo.admin MapServer layer by attribute value. The phrase 'on one ... layer by an attribute value' scopes it clearly and separates it from layer-listing (search_map_layers) and point probing (identify_map_layer). It stops short of naming those siblings directly in a contrastive sentence.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Identify a point first if you need the attribute names,' and the schema's layer param points back to search_map_layers, establishing the search -> identify -> find chain. What's missing is an explicit when-not statement or a direct contrast with identify_map_layer for attribute-only vs spatial queries.

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