OpenStreetMap MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this tool requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), what the response format looks like, or error conditions. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 states the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by specifying this is for OSM (OpenStreetMap) quality assurance to provide immediate context.

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 (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what OSMOSE is (OpenStreetMap quality assurance system), what types of issues it finds, the significance of severity levels, or what the search results contain. Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the response structure for a tool with this many filtering options.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, types, constraints, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond mentioning 'various filters' generically. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Search for OSMOSE quality assurance issues with various filters'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('OSMOSE quality assurance issues'), and scope ('with various filters'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osmose_get_issues_by_country' or 'osmose_get_issues_by_user', which appear to be more specialized versions.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for OSMOSE issues (e.g., osmose_get_issues_by_country, osmose_get_issues_by_user, osmose_get_issue_details), but the description doesn't indicate whether this is the primary search tool or how it relates to those specialized ones. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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