OpenLandMap MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'finds all other collections that have data within that period' but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description adds some context about temporal overlap but lacks comprehensive behavioral details needed for a tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every section (purpose, usage context, parameters, returns, example) earns its place by adding specific value without redundancy. The structure is logical and efficient, with 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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, return values, and provides an example. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it could be more complete by addressing behavioral aspects like error conditions or performance characteristics.

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. It successfully adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining each parameter's purpose: 'collection_id: Reference collection identifier', 'start_year: Start year (inclusive)', 'end_year: End year (inclusive)'. The description also clarifies the temporal relationship ('within that period') and provides an example with concrete values, though it doesn't explain parameter constraints or formats beyond basic types.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Find datasets with temporal overlap for correlation analysis') and resources ('collections'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_collections' or 'find_related_collections' by focusing specifically on temporal overlap rather than general comparison or relationship finding.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Useful for multi-variable studies') and implies usage by describing what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list, such as 'compare_collections' or 'find_related_collections', which might serve similar but different purposes.

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