Get guidepost details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what data is returned (name, elevation, position, tags) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any prerequisites, rate limits, or how the response is structured. It adequately describes a simple data retrieval tool but lacks depth typical of higher scores.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and key fields, followed by a single clarifier about id sourcing. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to get the id, and the meaning of flavour/language defaults. It leaves some ambiguity about return format but is sufficient for straightforward 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds that guidepost ids are from map tiles/other tools (not schema) but otherwise does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 it retrieves guidepost details by OSM node id, listing the specific fields returned (name, elevation, position, tags). It distinguishes itself by noting that guidepost ids come from map tiles or other tools, not route searches, which differentiates it from siblings like get_route_details.

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 guidance on where to obtain the guidepost id (from map tiles or other tools, not route searches). This helps the agent understand the source of valid inputs. It does not explicitly exclude contexts, but the intended use is clear given the sibling tools (routes, geocoding, forecasts).

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