OpenStreetMap MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what format/issues are returned. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented elsewhere.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools with similar purposes), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'OSMOSE issues' are, how results are structured, or when to choose this tool over alternatives. For a data retrieval tool with filtering options, more context is needed.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying country filtering. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra value like explaining what 'OSMOSE issues' actually are or how the filters interact.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OSMOSE issues'), and specifies the scope ('in a specific country'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osmose_get_issues_by_user' or 'osmose_search_issues', which could have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'osmose_get_issues_by_user' or 'osmose_search_issues'. It mentions the country filter but doesn't explain when this tool is preferred over other issue-fetching tools in the sibling list.

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