os_map_export_roads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context by stating the operation runs 'server-side' and that the export includes 'all upstream pages and semantic parts', which clarifies the scope of what is produced. Yet it omits important behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if there are side effects, or whether specific prerequisites or licenses are required.

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 sentence with the core purpose ('Export complete road overlay artifacts server-side') placed up front, followed by the input scope. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, and enums. It does not explain the structure of the roads array, the meaning of the outputFormat variants, or the roles of derivationMode, postalDeliveryOnly, or simplifyToleranceMeters, leaving an agent without enough detail to construct a valid invocation confidently.

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?

The description only loosely maps to two parameters ('road numbers' -> roads array, 'selectionSpec-derived AOIs' -> selectionSpec) and leaves nine other parameters untouched. With only 36% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the large number of undocumented parameters such as outputFormat, forceRefresh, anchorBufferMeters, and simplifyToleranceMeters, so an agent has to infer their meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('road overlay artifacts'), and execution context ('server-side'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like os_map_export by narrowing to road overlays. It also identifies the two main input modes ('road numbers and/or selectionSpec-derived AOIs'), leaving little ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 clear usage context by specifying that the tool operates from road numbers or selectionSpec-derived AOIsas inputs newsletter, effectively defining when it should be applied. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which leaves some selection inference to the agent despite the clear input scoping.

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