Validate OSM Tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details the validation checks performed and indicates return value includes localized names and actionable messages. However, it does not explicitly state operational aspects like idempotency or external calls, which are minor given the read-only nature of validation.

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, well-structured paragraph that concisely covers the tool's purpose, validation types, and use cases. It uses bullet-like formatting with colons for clarity, with no redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context on what validations are performed and the nature of the results. It covers all functional aspects, though it could include a brief note on error handling or response format.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with detailed descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds general context about validation types but does not provide additional specifics about how each parameter is used beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline.

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 validates a single OSM tag key-value pair against the OSM tagging schema, listing specific validation types (deprecation, schema existence, option validation, field type checking). It distinguishes from the sibling validate_tag_collection by focusing on individual tags and mentioning use before bulk operations.

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 explicitly recommends use for educational purposes, data quality checks, or validating individual tags before bulk operations. While it doesn't name the alternative validate_tag_collection, the context implies that sibling tool is for bulk operations, providing clear guidance.

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