get_place_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it uses OSM Nominatim and returns a dictionary with coordinates, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential ambiguity, external service dependency, rate limits, or behavior when no place is found. No contradiction 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?

The description is concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is minimal redundancy. It could be slightly improved by folding the Args section into a more natural sentence, but it remains efficient.

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 single parameter, strong annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It conveys the core behavior, input, and return type. However, it omits context about when an agent should prefer this over smart_geocode or search_osm_elements, and leaves room for ambiguity about how place names are interpreted by Nominatim.

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 for the schema's lack of details. It does explain place_name as 'Name of the place to search for,' but this adds little beyond the schema's existing 'Place Name' title and string type. It offers no examples, formatting hints, or guidance on ambiguity (e.g., 'Paris, France' vs 'Paris, Texas').

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get information about a place by name using OSM Nominatim.' It also specifies the mechanism (Nominatim) and the output (information and coordinates). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like smart_geocode or search_osm_elements, but 'by name' gives a reasonably distinct purpose.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as smart_geocode, get_osm_node, and search_osm_elements overlap conceptually, and the description gives no exclusions, conditions, or preferred use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and the phrase 'by name.'

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