osm_overpass_query

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: requires `out geom;` to produce geometry, splits into layers by geometry type, closed ways are lines not polygons, relations not parsed, and 2000 element cap. No contradictions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. No wasted words.

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 complexity of running a raw query and handling various output types, the description covers all essential aspects: query syntax requirements, geometry handling, layer splitting, element cap, and mention of coordinates. The presence of an output schema reduces need to explain return values.

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 the description should compensate for all parameters. It implicitly explains the `query` parameter but does not describe `base_url` or `layer_name` at all, leaving ambiguity about their purpose and default behavior.

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 it runs an Overpass QL query and adds resulting nodes/ways as layers. It also explains how output is split into points/lines layers, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform different 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?

Explicitly states the query must end with `out geom;` for coordinates, that relations are not parsed, and that there is a 2000 element cap with a recommendation to narrow the query instead of raising the cap. This gives clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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