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 mentions 'Taginfo-enhanced queries' but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it affects performance, accuracy, or data sources. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., format, pagination). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details like the target resource ('highways') to improve clarity at a glance.

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 of a search tool with 4 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Taginfo-enhanced' means, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with rich input schema but missing output and annotation context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't clarify parameter interactions, default behaviors, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 as 'Smart highway search using Taginfo-enhanced queries for major roads, motorways, etc.' It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'highways' with the enhancement method 'Taginfo-enhanced queries.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_tags' or 'search_pois_smart' that might also search OpenStreetMap data.

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 mentions 'Taginfo-enhanced queries' but doesn't explain what this means or when it's preferable over other search tools like 'search_by_tags' or 'search_pois_smart.' There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.

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