get_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait (coordinate resolution via 'out center'), but it does not mention error handling (e.g., element not found), auth requirements, or rate limits. For a fetch tool, the description adds some value but omits important behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and a key behavioral nuance. No filler or redundant information.

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?

With a simple tool, full parameter schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the core purpose and one behavioral detail. It lacks explicit usage guidelines, but given the simplicity and available structured data, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both element_type and element_id. The description simply restates the parameters without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('single OSM element') and the key parameters ('by type and id'). It also adds a distinctive detail ('coordinates resolved via out center') that separates this from sibling tools like geocode_place or find_places_nearby.

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 implies use when you have a specific element type and ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools exist for searches and raw queries, but no direct comparison is given.

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