search_osm_elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it uses the Overpass API and returns a dictionary; no result limits, timeout behavior, or API quirks are disclosed.

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 short and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by compact Args/Returns sections. The 'Dictionary containing search results' line is vague but does not add meaningful bulk.

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?

For a read-only 2-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the invocation-critical details are mostly present. It lacks context for choosing among the many sibling tools and says nothing about Overpass API behavior such as rate limits, result caps, or query interpretation, so completeness is adequate but not strong.

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%, and the description fully compensates: it explains the query with concrete examples and enumerates the four element_type options. This is exactly the information an agent needs to fill both parameters correctly.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('OSM elements'), and method ('Overpass API') with a text query, making its core function clear. It doesn't explicitly call out sibling alternatives like get_osm_elements_in_area or parse_natural_language_osm_request, so differentiation is left to the reader.

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 query examples ('coffee shop', 'hospital', 'park') imply it is for free-text POI/category searches, so usage is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-sibling guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of ID- or area-based alternatives.

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