get_aoi_soil_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the output format, the clipping behavior, the feature properties, and the explicit absence of ratings. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error cases, but for a read-only map retrieval this is reasonable context.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the essential output format, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, but the description leaves gaps around parameter semantics and usage prerequisites. It is adequate for basic tool selection but not fully complete for an agent that needs to construct a valid request without additional inference.

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 0%, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It references 'AOI' but never explains that 'wkt' should be Well-Known Text or what 'landunit' represents. The agent must rely on the parameter names alone.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: producing a GeoJSON FeatureCollection soil map for an AOI. It distinguishes itself from rating tools by stating 'no ratings are computed,' though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need a soil polygon map rendered as GeoJSON) and explicitly notes it does not compute ratings, which excludes it from rating use cases. However, it does not name alternatives like get_aoi_soil_summary or list specific conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice.

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