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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the response enumerates supported actions, flags capabilities that must be done in the OsmO app instead, and includes an openInOsmoUrl deep link — a useful behavioral boundary for an agent planning around API limits.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core idea ('what this OsmO integration can and cannot do') and then enumerates three concrete contents. No filler, though the colon-separated list reads slightly like an outline rather than prose and never states the action the agent should take.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so adequately by naming the three content categories including the deep link. A short note on response shape or typical next step after reading the help would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no schema semantics to compensate for. The only named field, openInOsmoUrl, is a return value rather than an input, and the description correctly frames it as a link the caller can surface.

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 frames this as a capability/limitations reference for the OsmO integration, listing what it returns (supported actions, in-app-only actions, an openInOsmoUrl link). That distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like place_call or list_calls. It lacks an explicit verb ('Returns...' / 'Call this to...'), so the agent must infer that invoking it yields documentation rather than performing work.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can deduce it should call this when unsure what the integration supports or whether a task must be finished inside the OsmO app. There is no explicit 'use this when' clause and no routing away from the closest sibling, osmo_support, leaving ambiguity about which help-style tool to pick.

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