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. It states the tool performs reverse geocoding but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data sources, accuracy, or what happens with invalid coordinates. For a geocoding tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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: 'Get address information from coordinates (reverse geocoding)'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses parentheses to clarify the technical term. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must infer these aspects, leaving room for uncertainty in tool selection and invocation.

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%, with clear documentation for 'lat', 'lon', and 'zoom' parameters including ranges and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining coordinate systems or how 'zoom' affects address detail. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Get address information from coordinates (reverse geocoding)'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('address information'), and transformation ('from coordinates'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_location' or 'get_place_details', which might also involve location-based queries.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'search_location' (which might handle forward geocoding) or 'get_place_details' (which might retrieve more specific place data). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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