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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the return content ('OSM geometry and tags'), the auth/payment requirement, and the important caveat that fixture results are test data rather than real local search results. This goes well beyond a generic statement, though it does not describe every edge case such as rate limiting or result ordering.

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 three crisp sentences: what it finds, what it returns, and the critical prerequisites/caveats. There is no filler, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the definition is fairly complete: it covers categories, bbox, limit behavior, return type, payment, and the fixture-data warning. A bit more detail about the exact response structure or coordinate conventions would make it fully self-contained, but the essential information is present.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does mention the feature categories and bounding-box constraint, and the schema documents category and limit well. However, the four coordinate parameters have no schema descriptions and the main description does not explain units or ordering, so the agent still has to infer semantics from the parameter names.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') plus an explicit list of feature categories and a bounding-box scope, so the tool's purpose is unmistakable. The schema's category enum further clarifies that this is for predefined OSM categories, with overpass_query for arbitrary tags, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 gives clear context: use for predefined feature categories within an explicit small bounding box, with a payment prerequisite and a warning to check service_status for fixture data. The category parameter description adds the alternative 'use overpass_query for arbitrary OSM tags', though the main description itself does not explicitly spell out all when-not-to-use conditions.

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