OpenLandMap MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('DownloadInfo dict with url and code snippets') and the multi-format nature, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it).

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 the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and an Example. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It's efficiently organized for quick scanning.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it lacks details on authentication, errors, or behavioral nuances (e.g., whether the S3 URL is pre-signed). Given the complexity, it's adequate but not fully 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations ('Collection identifier', 'Item identifier', 'Asset key') and provides a concrete example showing their usage. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints.

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 specific action ('Get download instructions') and resource ('for an asset in multiple formats'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_asset_url' (which likely returns just the URL) or 'list_assets_for_item' (which lists assets without download details). It specifies the multi-format output including S3 URL and code snippets.

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 implies usage when download instructions are needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_asset_url' or the sibling snippet-building tools. It provides an example but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or comparison with other tools.

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