osm_download_roads_pl

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses geocoding restriction to Poland, bounding box not exact, dependency on Nominatim accuracy, and element cap. Missing details on rate limits or potential errors, but adequate for a read-like tool.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Details in second paragraph are targeted and efficient. Excellent structure.

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?

Covers geocoding, bounding box, cap, and filtering. Output schema exists, so return format not needed. Missing explanation of base_url and layer_name, and what happens on empty results, but overall sufficient for moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains area_name and road_types with examples, but does not document base_url or layer_name, leaving them opaque. Partial value added but incomplete.

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?

Description states 'Download the OSM road network for a named Polish place', specifying a clear verb, resource, and geographic scope. It distinguishes from siblings like osm_overpass_query by focusing on roads and Polish places.

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?

Provides guidance on geocoding via Nominatim, bounding box limitations, and the 2000-element cap with advice to narrow search. However, it does not compare with siblings like osm_overpass_query or osm_download_by_tag, missing explicit when-to-use or alternatives.

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