export_osm_data

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the return shape and parameter-driven behavior; it does not disclose limits, auth needs, or other operational traits, so it provides moderate value beyond 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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a compact Args/Returns breakdown. The Returns line is slightly redundant since an output schema exists, but the overall structure is efficient and free of fluff.

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?

All three parameters are documented, the return type is indicated, and annotations cover safety and side effects. It lacks comparison with sibling tools and any guidance on large bbox exports, but for a straightforward export operation the description is nearly complete.

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 Args block fully compensates by explaining the exact bbox string format, listing allowed format values (json, xml, geojson), and clarifying include_metadata. This is essential semantic information the agent would otherwise lack.

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 a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('OSM data from a bounding box'), and names the supported output formats. This makes the tool's purpose clear and semantically distinct from sibling getters, searches, and editing tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_osm_elements_in_area or search_osm_elements. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated, only the basic operation.

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