Get POI details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the returned data types (tags, coordinates, map link) and the expected input format, which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't mention limitations like response size or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent and consistent with annotations.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second specifies the input source and format. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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 a single parameter, an output schema (present), and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to provide, where to obtain it, and what to expect in return. No critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'osm_id' parameter: it comes from find_nearby_pois or geocode and gives a concrete example ('node/240109189'). This matches the schema's pattern and clarifies the expected format. No other parameter exists, so the description completely resolves parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Fetches') and a clear resource: 'the full OpenStreetMap record of one element'. It enumerates the returned content (tags, coordinates, map link) and gives a concrete input example, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a single element's details rather than search or routing.

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 ties its input to results from find_nearby_pois or geocode, telling the agent when this tool is appropriate (as a follow-up to those searches). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'one element' and the stated input source effectively guides usage. The lack of an explicit 'when not to use' is a minor gap.

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