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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: data comes from the global OpenStreetMap database via the Overpass API and no authentication is required. This gives the agent practical operational expectations without contradicting any annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, and each sentence serves a purpose. The amenity list is slightly redundant with the enum, but it aids discoverability without bloating the description.

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?

For a read-only, no-auth search tool with a rich input schema and an output schema present, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly: scope, result fields, data source, and a clear intended use case.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters including the amenity_type enum, coordinate ranges, and limit. The description repeats some enum examples but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Search OpenStreetMap (OSM) for amenities of a specific type within a geographic bounding box.' It also lists the entity types covered and names the output fields, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does and how it differs from other overpass.search 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 a clear use case—'Ideal for finding local services near a point of interest'—and states the bounding-box scoping. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like overpass.search.nearby or overpass.search.named, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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