get_place_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it always uses the public Overpass source regardless of the editing API's environment, requires no OAuth, and warns that names/websites/tags are untrusted source data. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure that helps an agent set expectations about data provenance and trustworthiness.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the source behavior is stated in the second sentence, and the trust warning is a useful final note. Every sentence 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, input format, source behavior, auth, and data trustworthiness. The only minor gap is the language parameter's semantics, which is not explained. Overall, an agent has enough to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the place_ref format ('osm:node:123, osm:way:123 or osm:relation:123') which matches the schema pattern, and mentions the language parameter implicitly by discussing tags. However, it does not explain the language parameter's purpose or effect, leaving a gap. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for zero schema coverage.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('public OSM tags and location'), and the exact input format ('osm:node:123, osm:way:123 or osm:relation:123'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is for references returned by discovery, which separates it from get_osm_node/way/relation and get_place_info.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: for OSM references returned by discovery. It also states what it is not for implicitly by mentioning it always uses the public Overpass source and no OAuth. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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