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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: idempotency keys on submit, no request allowance for polling/downloads, compact metadata-only responses, and an authenticated REST URL for retrieval. It does not say what happens on duplicate idempotency keys, job lifetimes, or auth requirements for submit/list/cancel.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then operations, then the cost model, then the retrieval constraint. Nothing is redundant.

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, the description wisely states that responses contain compact job metadata and that actual JSON must be downloaded via the authenticated REST URL. Gaps remain around job lifecycle, status values, and pagination semantics for list results.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. Only idempotencyKey is explained; the meaning of 'data' (the Overpass payload), 'id', 'limit', and 'cursor' is left entirely to bare schema types and patterns.

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 uses specific verbs and a clear resource: 'Durable JSON Overpass background queries' with operations submit, list, status, and cancel. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling overpass_query by emphasizing durability and background execution, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives clear context for use (long-running Overpass queries, idempotent submission) and a strong practical incentive: 'Polling and downloads use no request allowance.' It also directs the agent to fetch results via the REST URL rather than inlining them. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative such as overpass_query.

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