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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: data provenance (OpenStreetMap via Overpass API), geographic coverage emphasis (European cities), and the exact set of returned attributes. It does not discuss rate limits or bounding-box limits, but the schema and annotations already carry most of that burden.

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 four sentences and front-loads the primary purpose first, followed by supported types, return content, and data source context. The use-case sentence at the end is slightly generic but still relevant. It is compact and free of filler, though it could trim the final sentence without losing much.

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 the output schema, the 100% parameter coverage, and the safety annotations, the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to filter, and the data's geographic emphasis. The only notable omission is explicit guidance on result ordering or pagination, but the limit parameter and output schema mitigate that gap.

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%, and every parameter is already well-documented with ranges and defaults. The description reinforces the transport_type parameter by listing the accepted types and saying 'Filter by transport type or fetch all transit infrastructure,' which adds a small amount of semantic color but does not carry a heavy load beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Find public transport infrastructure within a geographic bounding box.' It enumerates concrete stop types, return fields, and the filtering option, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like overpass.search.amenities or overpass.search.named. An agent can confidently infer what this tool does without opening the 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?

The description gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, citing trip planning, accessibility analysis, and locating nearby metro/train stations. It also notes the OSM/Overpass source and strong European coverage, which hints at suitability. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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