Get POI details

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

The description confirms read-only behavior ('Fetches'), aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds value beyond the annotation by detailing what is returned (tags, coordinates, map link), providing richer behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Two highly efficient sentences: the first describes the action and output, the second specifies the input format and source. No extraneous words, front-loaded with essential 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input source, output contents, and format. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of data limitations or error cases), but the information is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the meaning and origin of the osm_id parameter ('Takes an OSM id as returned by find_nearby_pois or geocode') and provides an example format. This adds semantic context that the schema pattern alone does not convey.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetches' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the full OpenStreetMap record of one element'. It explicitly lists returned data (tags, coordinates, map link) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning input sources (find_nearby_pois, geocode), making purpose unmistakable.

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 states that the tool takes an OSM ID as returned by find_nearby_pois or geocode, providing clear prerequisite guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool (e.g., if you need coordinates from an address, use geocode instead), but the sibling context and the given input source hint adequately.

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