Find features near a point

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns up to 'limit' elements with tags and a centre coordinate, giving a basic idea of the response shape. It lacks details on ordering, distance fields, or other response metadata, which is a moderate gap given no output schema is present. This is adequate but not rich.

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 three concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core function, the second gives the return shape, and the third provides a usage routing hint. It is front-loaded with the essential information and well-structured.

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 no output schema and a nested tags object, the description provides the essential purpose, return shape, and a usage hint. It is mostly complete for calling the tool, though the phrase 'centre coordinate' is slightly ambiguous and it does not mention result ordering. Overall, it is adequate for a simple proximity query tool.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all five parameters including their types, ranges, and defaults. The description mentions tag filters and the limit but does not add new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is therefore appropriate.

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'OpenStreetMap features', and the constraints 'matching tag filters within a radius of a point'. It also mentions the return of up to 'limit' elements with tags and a centre coordinate. While it positions itself as a good first tool for proximity queries, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like overpass_query or features_in_bbox, so it falls slightly short of the top score.

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 explicit routing to count_features for larger or unknown result sets, which is a clear when-not and alternative. It also gives a concrete example use case ('what cafes are near X'). However, it does not discuss when to choose overpass_query or features_in_bbox, so the guidance is partial rather than comprehensive.

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