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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the 0.5-degree-per-axis bbox cap, that results are OSM geometry and tags, that output is subject to a limit, and that a subscription key or x402 payment is required. It omits rate limits and explicit read-only framing, but auth and constraint disclosure are solid.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource categories and scope, then return content, then prerequisites. The long category enumeration is slightly list-heavy but every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return content, scope limits, and auth requirements. It is close to complete for a read-style search tool; missing only finer points like failure behavior and rate limits.

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 43%; south/west/north/east are undocumented (though self-evident), while category, limit, and responseMode are described in the schema. The description adds genuinely useful meaning beyond the schema by stating the real 0.5-degree bbox cap, which is stricter than the schema's ±180/±85 bounds.

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 ('Find') and enumerates the exact resource categories, plus the geographic scope (bounding box). An agent can tell this is a bounded POI/feature search. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like geo_search or geo_data, though the schema's category note points to overpass_query.

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?

Implies usage via the category list and the bbox constraint, and states the auth prerequisite, but never says when to choose this over alternatives. The only alternative-routing hint ('use overpass_query for arbitrary OSM tags') lives in the schema, not the description.

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