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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: a 5-point cap, duplicate-door folding, distance disclosure when points are far apart, ambiguity handling ('several towns are a question'), and the ODbL attribution obligation. That is exactly the kind of result-shaping and licensing context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and trigger, and every sentence carries information (limits, dedup, attribution). It is quite dense with em-dash clauses and parentheticals, which slightly taxes readability, but there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what is returned (a coordinate reusable as lat/lon, plus the named OSM objects or an explicit none), and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, and language in detail, including the language default trap. The description reinforces the street+number requirement for query but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('looks up a street address') and enumerates what it returns: the coordinate plus named OSM objects at that point. It explicitly distinguishes itself from find_place and find_poi by naming them, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger (a STREET AND NUMBER, with a worked example) and explicit exclusions: not for a town/district/station name alone (find_place) or a company/shop/landmark by name (find_poi). It also states the input precondition (needs both street and number), leaving nothing to inference.

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