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

Annotations already supply readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context: data source (OSM), canonical tag limitation, approximate number of global facilities, and the optional capacity field. It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond a bare safety profile, though it omits details like return format or how the bounding box is applied.

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 packs essential facts in four short sentences, front-loading the verb and resource. The example questions are somewhat verbose but still relevant. It avoids fluff and each sentence carries useful information.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description partially covers return values by listing facility fields ('each with name, operator...') and the canonical tag scope. It omits details about the response format or bounding-box behavior, which would round it out, but the core question of what data is returned is addressed.

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 only 33%; the four required lat/lon parameters have no schema descriptions. The description only paraphrases the already-documented 'country' parameter ('Pass country to slice') and offers no meaning for limit, lat_min, lat_max, lon_min, or lon_max. Given the low schema coverage, the description does not compensate for missing parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query oil refineries from OpenStreetMap' with a clear scope via canonical tags. Among sibling tools like query_pipelines and query_mines, this unambiguously targets refineries and its data source, so an agent can differentiate it without inspecting the schema.

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 explicitly gives usage examples ('Use for questions like...') covering geographic/refinery topics, which provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not name alternative tools or give exclusion criteria, but the examples are specific enough to route an agent correctly in most cases.

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