os_map_export

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that selection_uprn mode queues asynchronous work and that bbox mode is 'legacy', but it does not mention permissions, side effects, resource creation, or how async results are retrieved. This is helpful but incomplete.

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 crisp, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. The mode distinction is immediately visible, though the phrase 'Legacy mode' is somewhat cryptic without additional 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?

For a 15-parameter tool with no required fields and two modes, the description is too sparse. It does not explain which parameter groups belong to which mode, what constraints apply, or how the async selection_uprn workflow completes, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid request even with the output schema present.

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 only 7%, so the description must compensate for 15 mostly undocumented parameters. It adds meaning only to bbox and the selection_uprn selector concept, while leaving format, layers, filters, recipe, delivery, columns, limits, collections, derivationMode, includeGeometry, and selectionSpec effectively unexplained.

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 names a specific action (export) on a resource (map artifact) and differentiates two modes with distinct behaviors: legacy bbox-driven inventory snapshots and async selector-driven UPRN exports. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like os_map_export_roads or os_map_get_export, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

It provides enough context to choose between the two main internal modes: bbox for legacy inventory snapshots and selection_uprn for async UPRN exports. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as os_map_export_roads or os_map_get_export, nor does it give any exclusions.

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